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:

plant collecting and fieldwork in South America medicinal, culinary, or other traditional uses of plants chromosomes and plant classification early herbals and botanical illustrations botanical institutions exchanging plants, seeds, and specimens microscopy and photomicrography in botanical research How did botanists and gardeners introduce plants from one region to another? grafting, budding, and propagation of tropical fruit crops

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 102 · DO #4531 · 116_Van%20Schaack_Bx6FF19_r

Collection
George B. Van Schaack (1903–1983) papers
Item/Folder
Miscellaneous (1 of 2), 1945–1981
Digital Object
DO #4531, page 102
Collection-level dates
1918–1981
Open PDF at page 102 ↗

Page transcription

10

initials ( )

Finally, as we leave this great trio of works behind let us note that the excellence of illustration was just about as bad as it could be, considering the top quality of the plant portraits produced by Leonardo in the 15th century ( ) and Dürer in the early 16th century ( ) not to mention all the beautiful work done in earlier illuminated mss ( ). Why all this bad illustration in books? I have never seen any good explanation. I believe the reason may be closely linked to the cost of good woodcuts,--it was just cheaper to use a bad copy than a good new original, the same as it is today.

But in the end, scientific requirements demanded accuracy in plant illustration. The first great step here was taken by Brunfels in 1530 when he produced the first volume of his Herbarum vivae eicones ( ), i.e., living pictures of plants. To obtain these he employed Hans Weiditz, whose excellence in drawing has often been compared to that of Dürer. Weiditz made water color paintings which were pretty faithfully transferred to wood blocks. ( ) Here we see a modern copy of one of Weiditz's paintings beside the woodcut made from it. The woodcut is a little simpler, but the result is still an excellent representation of the plant. ( ) Sometimes Weiditz drew almost too well ( ) showing the plant as partly wilted. Brunfels' text was very largely compilation from the old authors ( ) with only a little of his own comment.

Brunfels was quickly followed in 1542 by Fuchs, whose ( ) De historia stirpium is considered by many to have the finest woodcuts of plants ( ). In the last one we note that the intermingling of the stems is very well portrayed without the figure being overladen. The text ( ), too, is more substantial than in Brunfels, more organized as regards nomenclature, morphology, related plants, geographic distribution, etc. In this slide we see the first European illustration of maize, and a very good one, except for the roots.

At this point it is worth looking at Fuchs' drawing of teasel ( ) then jumping back to that in the Herbarius Moguntinus ( ), the Gart der