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 23 · DO #983 · 319_Love_Bx2FF28r

Collection
Áskell Löve (1916–1994) papers
Item/Folder
Correspondence with William Weber (5 of 10), 1984–1985
Digital Object
DO #983, page 23
Collection-level dates
1950–1987
Open PDF at page 23 ↗

Page transcription

p. 184:

Arctostaphylos adenotricha (Fern. & Macbr.) LÖve, LÖve & Kapoor
(1971: Arctic & Alpine Research) certainly is a species distinct from
A. uva-ursi, since the former is diploid with 26 chromosomes, the latter
tetraploid, and they have never been found to hybridize. A slip of pen, or
simply slip of memory...even Homer sometimes nodded!

Kalmia microphylla (Hook.) Heller is a diploid, K. polifolia a tetraploid,
cf. LÖve, LÖve & Kapoor 1971, p. 155.

p. 186:

Perhaps better to translate Gr. agalma as "a delight, or an honor"? as
does R. S. Woods, 1944: The naturalist's lexicon?

The type of Euphorbia L. is E. antiquum L., a tree- or cactuslike plant
from India. You are right in accepting Chamaesyce as a genus, thus splitting
the complex into more natural groups, but mistaken in keeping the remainder
in Euphorbia. As far as I can find, all your Euphorbiae belong to the genus
Tithymalus J. Gaertn., and all but one have previously been transferred as such:
T. robustus (Engelm.) Small,
T. incisum(Engelm.) Norton v. mollis Norton,
T. esula (L.) Scop.,
T. uralensis(Fisch.) Prokh.,
T. crenulatus (Engelm.) Heller

T. spathulatus Lam.) Weber, however, needs help in transfer from the
basionyme Euphorbia spathulata Lam. 1788, Encycl. 2:428. I understand that it is
an annual related, morphologically at least, to T. helioscopia (L.) Hill.

p. 204:

Oxytropis campestris of American authors seems to be a complex of good species
that differ not only morphologically and geographically but also cytologically and
form a polyploid series. This European and Russian authors of recent years have
observed but of course the skilled florist and doubtfully learned biologist Barneby
hesitates to accept chromosomes in his otherwise fine system, because the great men
around him, though academically learned, have no understanding of genetics, of course.
O. campestris (L.) DC. s. str. is a hexaploid with 48 chromosomes, whereas the
"race" gracilis is an octoploid with 64, and so correctly classified as a species
in its own right: O. gracilis (A. Nelson) K. Schum.

pp. 205 - 207:

Trifolium is, of course, a monster that especially the Czechs have been
trying to divide, but sofar nobody in America, at least not recently. Perhaps
a project to be given to a fine graduate student who already has had a good
training not only in cytotogenetics and its philosophy but also in taxonomic thinking?
There is hardly time to try such a revision now, though the cytological data
seem to be available, in addition to the morphological ones?