US Virtual Herbarium Meeting summary

[Janet]

Attached below is a summary of the US Virtual Herbarium meeting, held
at the Botany 2008 conference in Vancouver. Mary Barkworth has posted
this and additional reports on what has been accomplished since then
at
<http://utc.usu.edu/USVH/Summer2008.htm>. She is encouraging everyone
to sign up and update their information on the Biodiversity
Collections Index site (it is a painless process), even if you aren't
in Index Herbariorum or on the Herbaria Listserv.
----------------------------------------------------

Summary of the USVH Open Meeting, July 31, 2008
Chair: Mary Barkworth

Others: Aaron Liston, Mary Mayfield, Zack Murrell, Jenn Pollock (all
members of the USVH steering committee); 43 other individuals,
representing 35 different institutions/agencies/companies.

Barkworth opened by summarizing the background to the meeting and
announcing that the Council of the American Society of Plant
Taxonomists had formally endorsed the goal of seeking to make
development of a national virtual herbarium (USVH) for the United
States a formal project under the auspices of the Agricultural
Experiment Station system. USVH will provide a single portal for
accessing information in all the nation's herbaria and will be built
on, and in collaboration with, existing and developing regional
herbarium networks.

Some of the reasons cited for developing USVH:

• To stress the importance of collections as sources of information

• To facilitate sharing and integrating information from multiple
herbaria

• To help those working in herbaria

Some individuals commented that “stakeholders”, those whom we think
would want to use herbarium information, should have been present. It
was explained that, in the view of the committee, the most important
step was to ensure that the herbarium community was supportive of the
project. This was the function of the present meeting, and the
multiple presentations during the week. Nevertheless, it is important
that we understand the needs of our potential users, which means that
we should invite them to participate in discussions once the initial
organizational aspects have been addressed.

In discussion of priorities, several speakers emphasized that the
greatest need was support for data entry. Different methods of
increasing the efficiency of data entry were discussed. It was soon
evident that herbaria differ substantially in non-financial resources
that they can draw on. Consequently, finding multiple approaches to
any problem is desirable.

The importance of working with existing initiatives, such as the
Biodiversity Collections Index and TROPICOS, was emphasized. The
Missouri Botanical Garden has agreed to support the project by
facilitating of TROPICOS as an authoritative source of names for North
American plants.

It was emphasized that USVH will be developed by collaboration,
collaboration with the regional networks, with other initiatives, and
among those who work in herbaria.

The implications of being a project within the Agricultural Experiment
Station system were discussed. The financial implications, other than
the possibility of one person per state receiving support to attend
the annual meeting, were not known. It was pointed out that the
linkage had already served to make more AES directors aware of
herbaria and that also brought herbaria to the attention of the
Extension Service, two groups with extensive experience in projects
with national scope. The involvement of NBII was also proving mutually
beneficial. Barkworth also commented that all herbaria should continue
their own efforts to obtain funding, that the USVH project would
assist in any way it could, but it might be more through workshops on
best practices and information to support applications for funding
rather than through direct funding of data entry.

For the second part of the meeting, the participants were asked to
discuss what the priorities should be for the first year. The
following are some of the ideas presented:

• Develop a means, such as a Wiki, for discussing ideas and setting
goals between meetings.

• Regional consortia should take responsibility for locating all the
herbaria within their region, including those not listed in Index
Herbariorum.

• Consider developing a basic portal using information already being
made available to NBII.

• Demonstrate the power of pooling our data, by asking herbaria to
enter all their records of 2-3 taxa that a) are rarely misidentified,
b) have not been subject to many name changes, and c) would be of
interest to potential user groups such as an invasive weed and a rare
plant.

• Set up a Web site that shows progress in databasing the taxa so
that the public and media could follow the progress, not only of
databasing but also of the spread of a weed.

• Develop mechanisms for sharing best practices for efficient
digitization of specimens.

• Provide a Web site that shows our progress in identifying the
number of herbaria in the US and their status with respect to
databasing, imaging, and information sharing.

There were many lively discussions during the meeting, which
eventually adjourned around 12.30 pm.