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 110 · DO #4708 · 231_Rogers_Bx3FF31_r

Collection
David James Rogers (1918–2007) papers
Item/Folder
Graduate Students Garrido, Johnston, McArthur & McCarthy, 1974–1979
Digital Object
DO #4708, page 110
Collection-level dates
1948–1977
Open PDF at page 110 ↗

Page transcription

The chromosome numbers in Table 1 have been compiled from Dansereau (1955),
Gustafsson (1946-7), and a variety of other sources.

In several of the genera that Rydberg and others (e.g., Dansereau 1955)
have segregated from Potentilla, generative apomixis is unknown. All investigations of breeding structure in Pentaphylloides, Comarum, Drymocallis, and Argentina have shown them to be sexual, outcrossing, and self-incompatible; Pentaphylloides and Drymocallis are largely diploid (Løve 1954; Clausen, Keck,
& Hiesey 1940; Clausen & Hiesey 1958), whereas Comarum and Argentina are predominantly tetraploid with rare, sporadic populations at higher ploidy levels. The closely related genus Fragaria (probably closer to Potentilla s.s. than Pentaphylloides, Drymocallis, or Argentina are) is entirely sexual, outcrossing, and self-incompatible, with different widespread species at diploid, tetraploid, hexaploid, and octoploid levels (Staudt 1968). In Fragaria, there is a clear correlation between ploidy and degree of dioecy, the octoploids being completely dioecious; there is some evidence that the higher polyploidy in this genus has been produced by pre-meiotic reduplication of the chromosomes, which accords with the studies showing genetic segregation of several loci in the manner of autopolyploids (Staudt 1968, Asker 1971). In this regard, it is significant that all the intergeneric hybrids successful between Fragaria and Potentilla have been with species of Pentaphylloides and Drymocallis: the crosses attempted between Fragaria and Potentilla s.s. have all failed (Ellis 1962, Asker 1969). The breeding system of Potentilla s.s. seems strikingly different from that of related genera.

The chromosome numbers in Potentilla are mostly euploid, that is, at integral multiples of the basic number, x = 7. There is a small aneuploid series in the group Tormentillae, and long series with very high numbers in the groups Graciles and Multijugae; in these groups there have been no diploids or tetraploids reported. The chromosome numbers reported in Multijugae to date have been: