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 3 · DO #5032 · 179_Langman_Bx2FF7_r

Collection
Ida Kaplan Langman (1904–1991) papers
Item/Folder
Reprints and accompanying correspondence (7 of 7), 1953–1955
Digital Object
DO #5032, page 3
Collection-level dates
1919–1980
Open PDF at page 3 ↗

Page transcription

Dear Dr. McVaugh: Until you suggested it, I hadn't thought of writing up my plant collecting in Mexico. But I can see that it might be desirable to have available in recognized botanical publications certain basic information about all botanical collections-areas covered, dates involved, notes on dominant or unusual species observed, etc. So here you have my contribution for the files.

My first trip to Mexico was in the summer of 1939, and collecting, I must confess, was a side line-subordinated to getting a quick, general tourist's-and eye view of Mexico, gathering impressions of the country, the people, and learning entirely conversational a little bit of the language. Collecting was done almost along the automobile highways selected from the comparatively few open at that time. The trip, though superficial, served several useful purposes. It infected me with a love of the country and its people from which I never expect fully to recover. It introduced me to a new kind of fun-learning to speak a Mexican language other than my own-and it plunked me down in the middle of a colorful strange flora which made the Pennsylvania Poconos where I had done my previous collecting seem dull, indeed, by comparison.

During that summer 324 numbers were collected and deposited in the herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. A large part of the collection came from along the Pan American between Laredo and Mexico City-a region of great diversity both scenically and floristically. Certain plants still stand out vividly in my recollections of that highway: Leucophyllum texanum, so appropriately called "cenizo" by the Mexicans; Cordia Boissieri, the "anacahuite", whose fruit was eaten by the herds of goats that roamed the dry plains of the north; mezquite with its feathery foliage; Argemone, the Mexican poppy; and Nicotiana glauca, a wild tobacco. Here, too, I saw the first representatives of these genera that were to become, for me, familiar elements of the Mexican flora - Cupheas, Ruellias and Gomphrena. Trips out of Mexico included the following:

1. To the Pyramids of Teotihuacan, where I saw my first Mirabilis Jalapa, the four o'clock, growing wild, and where I became familiar with some of Mexico's most common weeds-Stevia linoides, Sanvitalia procumbens, Sphaeralcea angustifolia, Mentzelia hispida, Bouvardia triphylla and Gaura coccinea.

2. To Guadalajara: with a side trip, also by car, into the crater of the Nevada de