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 41 · DO #459 · 204_Popenoe_Bx33FF29r

Collection
Wilson Popenoe (1892–1975) family papers
Item/Folder
Preface, Introduction, and The Mango - manuscript and notes (typed and handwritten) - chapters in outline for proposed book with Herbert Wolfe, n.d.
Digital Object
DO #459, page 41
Collection-level dates
1882–1975
Open PDF at page 41 ↗

Page transcription

314 CEIBA VOL. 4
1956 CURRENT METHODS 319

mercial plantings to such an extent that Florida now has
a Lychee Association devoted exclusively to the commercial
production and marketing of this excellent fruit.

Many other men took part in the early development
of tropical fruit growing in Florida. I call to mind at this
moment Dean H. Harold Hume of the College of Agriculture,
University of Florida, and Harold Mowry, Director
of Experiment Stations; T. Ralph Robinson of the U. S.
Department of Agriculture, who did valuable work on
avocados and papayas, as well as citrus; the Dorn Brothers
of Larkin, south of Miami, who were pioneers in the cultivation
of avocados and mangos; and J. L. Hickson of Miami
who had one of the early orchards. I mention all of these
because they are among those whom I knew personally;
others I have not omitted intentionally.

And now, to come nearer home, I should mention that
the work done in Florida in the early days naturally was
reflected in neighboring regions, of which I believe the most
important were Cuba and Puerto Rico. In a recent and
interesting booklet entitled "El Mango", H. A. Van
Herrmann, dean of tropical fruit specialists in Cuba, recounts
that George B. Cellon in 1906 supplied Roland R. Conklin
100 Mulgoba mangos for planting near Habana; at about
the same time others were sent to Mr. Runyon at Guanajay,
and to the Isle of Pines. These plantings were doomed to
failure because Mulgoba produced small and irregular
crops, but the work of propagating and testing varieties at
"Finca Mulgoba" was carried on by Mr. Van Herrmann
for many years. Slightly later than in Cuba, I believe,
plantings of grafted mangos were made in Puerto Rico, and
useful work in propagation and cultural practices was done
at the Agricultural Experiment Station in Mayagüez by
Hess and by Kinman.

So now I come back to my original question or a variation thereof: Just what bearing does all this have upon fruit
growing in tropical America generally? We owe to workers
in Florida, and to a less degree, those of other regions,
much of our present knowledge regarding the propagation
and care of tropical fruits in general. Captain Haden of
Coconut Grove, Florida, produced the Haden mango, a
seedling of Mulgoba, the most important grafted variety

Side grafting the avocado. On the right, the graft is completed and
tied with rubber grafting strip

The tree will be ready for setting in the field in five
to seven months from the time it is grafted. If these young
trees are kept another year in the original gallon container,
they become root-bound and are very unsatisfactory for
planting in the field. Should it be desirable to hold the trees
longer, they should be transferred to three — or five —
gallon containers at the end of the first year.

Veneer grafting in the nursery is sometimes practiced
if the young succulent reetstocks become too hard or too
old for the side graft. These stocks can be of pencil size or
even twice to three times that diameter. Where they have
attained considerable size transfer should be made to larger