Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation
A Research Division of Carnegie Mellon University

Hunt Institute Archives Text Discovery Platform

Search a large and growing portion of our online collections, including handwritten documents.
PROTOTYPE

This prototype uses state-of-the-art artificial intelligence, including a vision-language model (VLM) capable of reading handwritten documents as well as typed and printed text, to create searchable transcriptions of digitized materials in the Hunt Institute Archives. This makes it possible to search the textual contents of individual pages, including material that may not be described in the archival catalog.

Use Keyword search for specific words, names, dates, scientific names, or phrases. Try Semantic search (experimental) to describe a topic, question, or kind of material when you do not know the exact wording used in the documents.

About the AI-generated transcriptions

The transcriptions are generated automatically from page images and may contain errors, especially with difficult handwriting, unusual names, multiple languages, image-quality problems, or complex layouts. They are intended primarily as a discovery aid rather than authoritative transcriptions.

Each result provides the generated transcription and links to the original digitized material and associated archival description so that readings can be checked against the source. The transcription workflow uses AI models run locally by the Hunt Institute.

About Keyword and Semantic search

Keyword search is the default and matches the wording in the transcriptions. Results contain all your terms. Use quotes for an exact phrase. Substring matching is supported, so aceae can find plant-family names ending in -aceae.

Semantic search (experimental) is useful when you know what kind of material you are looking for but do not know the words used in the documents. It ranks transcribed passages by similarity of meaning, so relevant results may not contain the exact words in your query.

Semantic queries can be broad research topics, descriptions of activities or relationships, or natural-language questions. For example:

Semantic search is not a chatbot: a question is used as a search query, and the system returns archival passages that appear conceptually related to it rather than generating an answer or summary. Short descriptions and ordinary research questions generally work better than lists of disconnected keywords. Quotation marks have no special meaning in Semantic mode. Cross-language matching may work in some cases, but it should not be treated as translation.

Keyword and Semantic search are complementary. Keyword search lets you require particular wording; Semantic search can surface differently worded passages about the same subject. Depending on the research question, trying both can reveal different useful material.

Open a result: use the prominent page-and-transcription link to see the metadata, PDF, and full transcription. Keyword-search terms are highlighted in the transcription.

Archives Collections Database (ArchivesSpace): the Collection, Item/Folder, and Digital Object links open the corresponding archival records. Collection-level dates describe the collection as a whole, not necessarily the specific item or page.

If a PDF does not load: on the detail page, use the Digital Object link, click “Go to file” in ArchivesSpace, and navigate to the page number shown here.

Current limitations
  • Automated transcriptions can contain missing or incorrect text or unintended repetition. Difficult handwriting, image quality, unusual layouts, and multiple languages can reduce accuracy. Always consult the original page image when an exact reading matters.
  • Semantic search remains experimental. Its rankings are an additional discovery aid, not a complete or definitive set of relevant results, and highly ranked pages can sometimes be only broadly related.
  • This is an active prototype. Search coverage, transcriptions, functionality, and the interface may continue to change as additional archival material is processed and the system is improved.

← Back to results

Page 53 · DO #3973 · 296_Lowy_Bx3FF40_r

Collection
Bernard Lowy (1916–1992) papers
Item/Folder
Research Grants 1960→, May 1960 – February 1973
Digital Object
DO #3973, page 53
Collection-level dates
1949–1990
Open PDF at page 53 ↗

Page transcription

SIMPOSIO SOBRE A BIOTA AMAZONICA
JUNE 1966,
BELEM, BRASIL

BOTANICA
METHODS AND RESULTS OF THE MYCOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
OF TROPICAL SOUTH AMERICA
Rolf Singer
Universidad de Buenos Aires, B.Aires.

The History of mycological exploration in the South American tropics shows that until a relatively short time ago, the collecting and distributing of fungi has been a hap-hazard undertaking. The collecting has been done by very few mycologists (Rick, Sydow, Weir, Torrend, and a few others) without either exhausting the mycoflora of a single territory nor covering any larger area like the Amazonas region. The rest of the material has been gathered by phanerogamists or general collectors who did not gather any material that was not showy or easy to prepare, and the gathering very often coincided with the periods least opportune for fungus fructification.

Only recent work has given better results, either because it was organized intelligently by specialists or, increasingly, by local mycologists.

This way a more exhaustive study during the periods of maximal fruiting has become possible. Certain groups of fungi have been studied sufficiently to obtain an overall impression of the character of the American tropical mycoflora, at least as reflected by certain families or genera, as compared with the South temperate, the north temperate and the palaeotropical mycoflora. These groups are: Rusts, polypores, certain groups of agarics and boletes, the stipitate Stereums, many groups of typical soil fungi, certain groups of Pyrenomycetes, Clavariaceae, certain genera of Discomycetes.

This was possible on the basis of a climatological study of the Neotropics presented in a map, year-round collecting, and systematical exploration of the soil mycoflora. It was possible because of the creation of permanent tropical South American mycological centers (São Paulo, Recife, Tucuman, Trinidad) and