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 126 · DO #4831 · 231_Rogers_Bx7FF3_r

Collection
David James Rogers (1918–2007) papers
Item/Folder
Computer Correspondence, 1967
Digital Object
DO #4831, page 126
Collection-level dates
1948–1977
Open PDF at page 126 ↗

Page transcription

A NUMERICAL TAXONOMIC
AND CYTOGENETIC STUDY OF
CERTAIN SPECIES OF THE GENUS CAPSICUM
(Order No. 64-12,019)
William Hardy Eshbaugh III, Ph.D.
Indiana University, 1964

The relationship of several taxa of the genus Capsicum (Solanaceae) has been studied using both cyrogenetic and taximetric methods.

Taximetric relationships are established by using product-moment coefficients of correlation obtained by Q-technique of factor analysis. Group relationships among the taxa are found by the variable-group method and the ramifying-linkage method of cluster analysis. Cytogenetic relationships are based on data from hybridization studies, pollen sterility, karyotype analysis, meiotic chromosome behavior, and F1 and F2 morphology.

Two species of Capsicum, the cultivated C. pendulum and the wild C. microcarpum were studied in detail. Qualitative characters show these two taxa to be relatively inseparable while quantitatively they are quite distinct.

Taximetrically the association of these two taxa is very low. However, they form fertile hybrids which generally exhibit normal chromosome pairing, and they also have the same karyotype. It is thought that the cytogenetic information is more revealing of the true relationship of these two taxa. Therefore, it is proposed that these two taxa be combined into a single species and given varietal status. The wild taxa C. microcarpum then becomes C. baccatum var. baccatum and the cultivar is known as C. baccatum var. pendulum (Winkl.) Eshbaugh. The role of cultivation in the evolution of C. baccatum var. pendulum the taximetric treatment of cultigens and the nomenclature of these two taxa are discussed.

An additional study of the taximetric and cytogenetic relationships of fourteen taxa, including the two above named varieties, was made. The variable-group method is quite conservative and only reveals two groups while the ramifying-linkage method is more liberal and depicts nine distinct groups at the same level of analysis. The relative merits of the two techniques of group analysis are discussed.

Cytogenetic evidence suggests that there are two distinct groups among these fourteen taxa. The first group consists of six cross fertile taxa, C. cardenasi, C. eximium, SA 321 - SA 357, C. pubescens, SA 270, and SA 281, that form highly fertile F1 hybrids. The second group comprises five cross fertile taxa, C. baccatum, C. praetermissum, C. frutescens, C. chacoense, and C. chinense, that produce sterile progeny from intercrosses.

A comparison of the group structure obtained from taximetrics and cytogenetics is made. The ramifying-linkage method reveals the same two groups found by cytogenetic methods, as well as seven additional groups. The relationship of all these groups could not be tested by hybridization studies because of a lack of flowering material. The variable-group method depicts only one of the groups revealed by the cytogenetic evidence. Furthermore, it would seem that numerical taxonomy as now developed is inadequate for the treatment of both cultivated and wild species in a single system.

Several taxa used in the present study represent undescribed species and will be treated formally elsewhere.
Microfilm $2.75; Xerography $6.00. 124 pages.