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 38 · DO #505 · 204_Popenoe_Bx42FF8r

Collection
Wilson Popenoe (1892–1975) family papers
Item/Folder
Oversized correspondence E–K [Envelope 2] (Englelhardt, Lila to  Kessler, George), 28 August 1940–30 January 1974
Digital Object
DO #505, page 38
Collection-level dates
1882–1975
Open PDF at page 38 ↗

Page transcription

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT

International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants
dated May, 1957,
by Dr. E. Sinskaya

1. Section B (4) - "supplementary categories", (b) - "within a species,
or intraspecific hybrid, which includes a large number of
varieties (cultivars), assemblages of similar varieties (cultivars)
may receive distinguishing as groups".

It seems to me that the term "groups" is not definite enough
and may lead to confusion and misunderstanding.

In particular I would draw your attention to the fact that in
the practical work of the All-Union Institute of Plant Industry in
Leningrad we use the term "agroecological" or "ecologogeographical"
group in the classification of cultivated plants. This to a
certain extent corresponds to "ecotype". However for plants
included in the ecotype a common origin is considered necessary.
On the other hand, for plants included in the "agroecological group"
it is not always possible to achieve clarity with regard to common
origin. In the latter case we have to count with the possible
existence of convergent processes to a greater or lesser extent.

Academician P. M. Zhukovsky told me that at one of the first
meetings of the International Commission the question was discussed
of substituting the term "group" by the term "conculta" which would
correspond to the Russian term "sortotypus".

Personally I would suggest the term "concultivar", which would
sound nearer to the term "convarietate" (used for botanical
varieties).

2. Section C, Art. 4 "Cultivar name must be attached to either "a scientific
name or a common name".".

Here I think that the term "cultivar" should always be attached
to a definite taxon. The use of common name leads to
misunderstandings, taking into consideration the international
significance of the Code.

3. In the list of libraries which are to receive information of the new names
of plants and their descriptions I should like to see the library of the
All-Union Institute of Plant Industry in Leningrad.