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 20 · DO #1674 · 72_Degener_Bx6FF22B_r

Collection
Otto Degener (1899–1988) papers
Item/Folder
Misc. Papers II, 1955
Digital Object
DO #1674, page 20
Collection-level dates
1915–1985, n.d.
Open PDF at page 20 ↗

Page transcription

Mokuleia Beach, Wailua,
Oahu, Hawaii.
Oct. 11, 1955.

My dear Dr. McVaugh:

I just received Dr. Fosberg's letter of Sept. 28 in
which he mentions that you would like more detail regarding the areas in
which I wish to botanize and the problems I wish to solve.

I have botanized in the Hawaiian Islands since 1922 and know pretty
well where endemics and often novelties are to be found. I wish to col-
lect in such areas of native vegetation avoiding, of course, ridges and
valleys where I or colleagues have botanized extensively before. In gene-
ral, the endemics still survive at higher elevations, particularly above
2,000 ft., and down to sea level along the precipitous windward coasts of
Kauai, Molokai, partly Maui and the Kohala region of the Island of Hawaii.
Such precipitous regions are cut by numerous isolated valleys still little
known and uninhabited. There is no telling what botanical surprises await
the collector, especially in our flora where extreme endemism is rampant.

For years I have looked for happy botanical hunting grounds, and have
been eminently successful in my search. Please just peruse at random
lists of exsiccatae or of cited specimens in recently monographed revi-
sions of families or genera occurring in the Hawaiian Islands. Any of
Earl E. Sherff's, like his revision of Tetraplasandra (Fieldiana: Bot.
29(2):139-140, 1955.) would do, or perhaps Yuncker's monograph of Pepe-
romia (Bishop Mus. Bull. 112:124-125, 1933.), or Fosberg's monographs of
Hedyotis or Gouldia, and Bartram's monumental study of Hawaiian mosses.
Such works show the success of my collecting in regions relatively unknown.

Mrs. Degener and I spent last month on Kauai, botanizing and surveying
the field so as to be prepared to forge ahead with our project should a
grant-in-aid materialize. Incidentally, we kept the appeal strictly con-
fidential to avoid "losing face" should it be denied. Instead of botaniz-
ing and working up the plants on all the major islands of the Archipelago
for three years, as initially proposed, I now favor concentrating (though
not necessarily limiting) our efforts to Kauai. The reasons are as follows:

1. Kauai is the oldest of the larger islands, is cut up into numerous
isolated mountain ranges inviting speciation, and harbors the largest num-
ber of endemic genera.

2. Trustees of the little Kokee Natural History Museum in the interior
of Kauai at an elevation of 3,500 ft., have offered its facilities to us.

3. I was able to employ part-time the custodian of the Kokee Museum, a
former pig and goat hunter familiar with the interior of the island, to
help botanize with aid of a pack horse. He is prepared to continue such
work. Thus I could start botanizing immediately should the grant be ap-
proved.

4. Kauai residents are eager to explore with me various isolated wind-
ward valleys, and are willing to pay their share for hiring a sampan to
get us there.