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 50 · DO #961 · 319_Love_Bx1FF6r

Collection
Áskell Löve (1916–1994) papers
Item/Folder
"Outlines for Books and Articles to be Published but Never Completed" (2 of 3) , 1969, n.d.
Digital Object
DO #961, page 50
Collection-level dates
1950–1987
Open PDF at page 50 ↗

Page transcription

Biosynthetic VII

Species hybrids

I have mentioned previously that although plants with different chromosome numbers may be crossed, they then hybrids are actually sterile, so that their genes cannot be mixed or recombined. With other words, chromosomes with differences may allow crossability but not meiosis. Chromosome numbers vary from 2 = 2 in the Ascaris, which is more intestinal worm? The horse, (2 = 4, the Equine Hyalopogon prorius), to 2 = 1200, in the Indian fox Cynipiform reticulata. Nevertheless, there are many examples of such animals and plants having the same chromosome number species, that it is unavoidable that many unrelated animals and plants have the same chromosome number. The shape of the chromosomes and their size differs considerably. For example, the Scirpus albus, which are just visible in the light microscope since they are only 0.2 per log, to those of lilies which we can see with the naked eye! We distinguish chromosomes by their size but more frequently on basis of their morphology, or karyotype (Cherutsky 1932). Normally by aid of the localization of their centromere. If the centromere is situated in the middle of the chromosome, the chromosome is metacentric. If the centromere is situated towards one end of the chromosome, the chromosome is submetacentric, subtelocentric, acrocentric (micro-sized), telocentric (lengthy at the end), or ringed. Also said that the centromere is median, submedian, subterminal, terminal. Other secondary structures occur in the chromosome series; especially when satellites occur, connected with the junction of nucleoli, which are dense, spherical bodies rich in RNA and visible only wrongly in the interphase.

Even if different species have the same chromosome number and are related, they rarely cross if their chromosome morphology is not similar. And one geologist's evidence reported in medieval times has not been experimentally verified, e.g., the report of the creation of the ostrich from a hybrid between a giraffe and a camel! In animals, hybridization is often prevented because the individuals of different species do not wish to pair with each other. In Drosophila this has been studied in detail by bringing together females of one species with males belonging in part to the same species and in part to numerous closely related species. The females almost always prefer their own males. Hybridization is also prevented by the fact that the sexual organs in the two species are so differently constructed that pairing is excluded.

In flowering plants, species crosses are often prevented from the outset. The fact that pollen from one species is unable to germinate on the stigmas of the other. In other cases, the pollen may germinate, but pollen tube growth is so slow that fertilization and the place. In certain instances, however, this difficulty may be experimentally overcome by stimulating pollen tube growth through moderate X-ray doses or by repeated pollinations.

If the egg is fertilized and a hybrid embryo is formed, the embryo may degenerate during its development, resulting in an inviable seed. In several cases of this kind it has been found that embryo death is not caused by an incompatible embryo constitution, but by a physiological disharmony between the embryo and the mother plant. In other words, the mother is a "bad mother" for the hybrid seed. This has been demonstrated by excising the embryo from the ovule, followed by culture of the excised embryo on an artificial nutrient medium. The technique for artificial embryo culture has been gradually improved, and it is generally possible to raise a considerable number of species hybrids that otherwise would not have survived.