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 70 · DO #1558 · 40_Slate_Bx2FF4r

Collection
George Lewis Slate (1899–1976) papers on Arnold Arboretum
Item/Folder
Final Court Documents, 1965–1966
Digital Object
DO #1558, page 70
Collection-level dates
1949–1967, n.d.
Open PDF at page 70 ↗

Page transcription

22

Arnold Arboretum, the Gray Herbarium, the Farlow Library and Herbarium, the Botanical Museum, and the Harvard Forest (par. 52, R. 78).

The Gray Herbarium, located in Cambridge adjacent to the site of the former Botanic Garden, was engaged in systematic botany or taxonomy (the classification of plants and the study of their relationships) in the field of phanerogamic or flowering plants. In 1944 its resources were a herbarium of 1,300,000 herbaceous specimens, a library of 43,000 books and pamphlets, and an endowment yielding an income covering only two-thirds of its annual operating cost. The deficit was covered by advances from the University (par. 53, R. 78-79).

The Farlow Library and Herbarium, which had developed out of the researches and collections of Professor Farlow, was, like the Gray Herbarium, engaged in taxonomy, but in the field of cryptogamic plants (fungi, algae, mosses, etc.) The Farlow Library and Herbarium was also housed in Cambridge. In 1944 its resources were a large herbarium, a library of 36,000 volumes, and an endowment yielding a restricted income which was slightly less than the annual cost of its operation and which prevented any large volume of outstanding research. In 1944 it was evident that the income available to the Farlow was inadequate for its future survival as an independently housed and administered institution (par. 54, R. 79).

The Harvard Forest at Petersham, Massachusetts, had a small endowment yielding an inadequate income capable of supporting only the director and one assistant as members of the scientific staff. During the decade preceding 1944 the Harvard Forest had led a precarious existence, dependent upon annual gifts, transfers of salaries to other institutions and other emergency measures for survival (par. 56, R. 80).


23

The Botanical Museum, located in Cambridge, included a number of botanical collections, including the famous collection of glass flowers, a collection of economic plants, a collection of plant fossils, the extensive economic botanical collection of Professor Oakes Ames, his herbarium of economic plants, an orchid herbarium, and a library of orchidology. Its resources yielded an income equal to less than half its cost of operations, the balance of the cost being made up by University expenditures for building maintenance and by annual sums in excess of $10,000 in total from the Biology Department, the Bussey Institution, and the Arnold Arboretum, for the salary and research budget of Professor Mangelsoff, the Assistant Director of the Museum (par. 55, R. 79-80).

On the other hand, the Arnold Arboretum in 1944 had an endowment and income equal to the combined endowments and income of the other eight botanical institutions affiliated with Harvard. Its endowment in 1944 was approximately $3,000,000, with a further $500,000 in prospect, and its endowment income exceeded its annual expenditures. In addition, the Arboretum had received in the previous decade annual gifts averaging about 10% of its annual income. Furthermore, its income was used to contribute annually $2,800 paid to the Superintendent of the Atkins Garden in Cuba, $2,500 toward the salary of the Assistant Director of the Botanical Museum, and two-thirds (or $8,000) of the salary of Professor Merrill as Administrator of Botanical Collections (par. 57, R. 80).

Professor Bailey's study resulted in a report entitled "Botany and its Applications at Harvard", submitted to the Provost in June 1945, commonly referred to as the Bailey Report (par. 59, R. 81). The Bailey Report pointed out what it described as the uncorrelated development of the several institutions concerned with botany during a period from 1870 to 1930, their isolation from each other,