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 7 · DO #964 · 319_Love_Bx1FF9r

Collection
Áskell Löve (1916–1994) papers
Item/Folder
"Proposals", 1959–1972, n.d.
Digital Object
DO #964, page 7
Collection-level dates
1950–1987
Open PDF at page 7 ↗

Page transcription

results of experiments on artificial mutations and several other studies
of basic evolutionary processes, theoretical and practical.

Although the need for retrieval of chromosome data has become
particularly acute in recent years, it has long been recognized. The
first attempt to index published chromosome numbers was made by the
German cytologist Tischler in 1915, when he published a 120-page list
of chromosome numbers and their bibliography. He continued this indexing
and published, from 1927 to 1938, a series of five chromosome number
reviews in Tabulae Biologicae, a publication which now is extremely rare
and difficult to find even in university libraries. Later, in 1950,
Tischler also published a list of chromosome numbers of the higher plants
from Central Europe. Four chromosome lists were published, from 1926
to 1934, by the Canadian botanist Gaiser, and the French cytologist Delay
compiled, in 1950, a list to cover the period from Tischler's list (1938)
up to 1949. Other chromosome indexes covering selected parts of the
world's flora have been published, e.g., for the cultivated plants of
Japan by Kihara, Yamamoto, and Hosono (1931), for cultivated plants in
general by Darlington and Janaki-Ammal (1945), and for flowering plants
in general by Darlington and Wylie (1955) and by Fedorov and associates
(1969). Since 1958, an annual index of chromosome numbers has been published
under the editorship, first, of Cave, later by Ornduff, and presently by
Moore, by the University of North Carolina Press and now by Regnum Vegeta-
bile. That list is compiled by a number of cytologists, mostly American.

Lists of more restricted floras or groups of plants have been
published by various scientists since Tischler (1934) indexed the chromo-
some numbers then known for the flora of Schleswig-Holstein. For the
Pteridophytes, Chiarugi (1960) and later Fabbri (1963, 1965) have published
critical lists in Caryologia. Maude (1939) and Rutland (1941) made
critical taxonomical chromosome lists of the flora of the British Isles;
Löve and Löve (1942) have published a critical list for the flora of the
Scandinavian countries, followed by another critical list for all the
Northern countries of Europe in 1948 and for the flora of Central and
Northwestern Europe in 1961; they also made a critical review of the
chromosome numbers of the Icelandic flora in 1956 and of the flora of
Mount Washington, N.H., in 1966. Other substantial lists covering entire
floras are those by Tarnavscchi (1948) for Romania, by Jørgensen, Sørensen,
and Westergaard (1958) for Greenland, and by Taylor and Mulligan (1968)