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 55 · DO #976 · 319_Love_Bx1FF21r

Collection
Áskell Löve (1916–1994) papers
Item/Folder
"Wheatgrasses" (3 of 3)
Digital Object
DO #976, page 55
Collection-level dates
1950–1987
Open PDF at page 55 ↗

Page transcription

25.

With closely related groups at the sex level of a cyclical form, and more remotely related taxa at the same level. Closely related are usually identical to genera described by critical classical scientists. They are characterized by a single basic chromosome that may be secondary if more than one is involved in the evolution of the taxa. The chromosomes of the genus when its origin deviates from hybridization. These theories also are characterized by the single chromosome morphology of all the species involved by distinct and by a definite karyotype (chromosome) of genetic relationships. From the sex point of view, a separate biological species is made up of a single group of individuals or groups that are tightly variable with each other each other, irrespective of the magnitude of morphological variation or distribution of its value, but it is reproductively isolated by aid of cytological differences attributed that prevent effective interspecific breeding with related taxa at the same level. Based on the sex logic, subspecies categories are defined as integrable major or minor geographical races which are cosmically interbreeding freely wherever they meet, as also organized on the purely morphological or geographical categories of those categories by earlier Smith (e.g., DeBry 1930; Helle 1968).

Progressive as it is, taxonomy tends toward a greater exactness because practical execution is of an utmost ingenuity not only for the purpose of breeding new plants for a hungry mankind in its needs, but also because only evolutionarily strictly defined and homogeneous categories from a sex standpoint for good geological or other advanced studies related to the history of kinship the plants involved (e.g., Rothmaler 1944; Line & Line 1959). However, the extent amplitude of the material to be classified counteracts the logical use of the above advanced concepts. For most plants since many take five still only known to botanists for species and want to nothing is known about their variety or simplified characteristics. Or, in other words, as long as the natural available for monomorph studies stretches over a complete range in a gentle gradient from the original and by classifying a single specimen for a sample had the the hoped evolutionary external data of means to give modern beginning to a well-known plant, it is not possible of indeed proprietors to require the one exception of all tolerance much! But approach is useful for its time and stage of knowledge, every study comes in close to the truth. The only requirement that ought to be made is that whenever a more advanced stage of knowledge is reached for a taxon this ought to require the replacement of adjusted less exact justifications served on allowed methods. That is the cyclical logical hypothesis principle of progressive science, and other procedures must be founded on practical and consistency.