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 18 · DO #3494 · 324_Traverse_Bx4FF17_r

Collection
Alfred Traverse (1925–2015) papers
Item/Folder
William G. Chaloner, 1990–1999
Digital Object
DO #3494, page 18
Collection-level dates
1948–2001
Open PDF at page 18 ↗

Page transcription

Dear Judy and Rob,

I am directing this to Judy, hoping that she might fax it on to Rob, since I have only her fax number at my elbow, from the Santa Barbara Listing. I really also owe her a reply to her letter to me of May 3 (I blush to say), although I apologised in person, and happily talked it through in Santa Barbara in July.

Your joint poster on the workings of fossil plant nomenclature was really excellent, and I wish you were publishing that instead of your revision of the code! I agreed with 90% of it, though would fret somewhat over your interpretation of form-genus (see below!)

I should also add - though I said it to Judy in the summer - that I could not get away for it, although I attended the Congress. Jim Schopf scolded me roundly for this! However, my understanding of the removal was precisely that the nomenclatural treatment of an organ genus was simply the removal of an extant plant genus, and so did not need to be singled out in any particular way in a code of nomenclature. To me and many other palaeobotanists, Tagenostoma is still an organ genus, based only on a seed. We can make a family, Tagenostomaceae, for it and put other genera of seeds into that family, but as you don't need to be told, we do not know the rest of those plants. Tagenostoma is a genus for seeds; for me it is an organ-genus, based on seeds. In that respect it is entirely different from a living genus of gymnosperm plants which of course have seeds, but a lot more besides! You have heard it all before, I know.

Of course Meyen in his textbook (Fundamentals of Palaeobotany, incorporated by Act of