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 64 · DO #976 · 319_Love_Bx1FF21r

Collection
Áskell Löve (1916–1994) papers
Item/Folder
"Wheatgrasses" (3 of 3)
Digital Object
DO #976, page 64
Collection-level dates
1950–1987
Open PDF at page 64 ↗

Page transcription

Some wise men have said that human life, human culture is
based on grains, and there can hardly be any doubt that the grain family
plays a large role in the well-being of man and his animals than
any other family of plants. All grains are not equally important,
so that man and domesticated animals utilize only a fraction of the
perhaps 650 genera and more than 10,000 species of the grain family.
Be it as it may, but although sweet grasses of the tribes Festucae and Avenae
may seem to furnish the bulk of the fodder for domesticated animals in the
northern hemisphere, the grasses of greatest concern for the welfare of man and his stock in historical times, all seem
to belong to the tribe Triticeae, or to what the so-called
wheatgrasses, or cultivated wheat and its relatives. It has been
claimed with considerable that without wheat there would have
seen little human culture, although the fact that most cultivated
grains were first bred and domesticated by Stone Age Indians in America,
from when the diploid wheatgrasses that gave rise to the macaroni and
later bread wheat are absent.

Dobzhansky has long known that wheat, rye and barley are related to numerous wild grasses, and that these
grains occasionally hybridize with one of these. The nature of this relationship, however, has remained obscure for various reasons,
so that even the taxonomic limits of the tribe itself were unclear until allowed the inclusion of even the very collection
type species of the tribe, the genus Brachypodium. In recent decades, however, extensive studies of artificial hybridization and
chromosome morphology have revealed that this latter genus stands apart
from the other units, not only by its much smaller chromosomes but
also by its inability to cross with any of the wheatgrasses, even those that morphologists agreed looked closely related to its species.
The wheatgrasses, as we now define the tribe, cannot yet
be seen as a monophyletic group which all are
characterized by a caryopsis, laterally compressed spikelets with two glumes,
single starch grains, and palea not septate, rather large chromosomes, the
basic number of which is X = 7. It is also important to note that