IAWA Journal, Vol. 29 (4), 2008: 425– 437 DISCONNECTION AND RECONNECTION: MISCONCEPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO VOUCHERS IN WOOD SCIENCE Jennifer Barker CRC for Australian Weed Management, PMB 1, Waite Campus, University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond SA 5064 [E-mail: [email protected]] SUMMARY This paper aims to raise awareness of the importance of plant specimen vouchers in wood anatomy and wood identification in keeping abreast of plant name changes. It reveals the strong possibility that many wood specimens in xylaria are currently misidentified because corresponding plant specimen vouchers have been lost or separated from collections and not revisited. It appeals to the systematic wood anatomy commu- nity to reconnect wood specimens in xylaria with their corresponding plant specimen vouchers in order to update nomenclature. More specific recommendations are aimed at the International Association of Wood Anatomists (IAWA) to promote and educate those in the wood commu- nity on the importance and value of plant specimen vouchers in wood identification and systematic wood anatomy. Of equal importance is the adoption and promotion of a wood specimen citation system that unam- biguously indicates whether research is based upon wood specimens with corresponding plant specimen vouchers and whether these vouchers have been consulted so that the research reflects current nomenclature. Key words: Wood identification, systematic wood anatomy, taxonomy, plant specimen voucher, herbaria, xylaria. INTRODUCTION … reference collections of wood backed by herbarium vouchers serve as a tool which is essential to the wood anatomist and herbarium taxonomist alike. The two classes of material must be kept together. (Metcalfe & Chalk 1988: 5) Index Xylariorum (Stern 1988) indicates that many xylaria with vouchered wood speci- mens do not retain the associated plant specimen vouchers.1 The online US National Herbarium (USw) database (2005) states that 60% of their wood collection is vouchered but that, while most plant specimen vouchers are in the US National Herbarium (US), a significant number are in other herbaria. Similarly, while 85% of theAustralian Wood 1) The links to be maintained between wood specimens and plant specimen vouchers recom- mended throughout this paper are shown in Figure 1. Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 07:21:14PM via free access 426 IAWA Journal, Vol. 29 (4), 2008 Barker — Vouchers in Wood Science 427 Collection (FPAw) is said to be authenticated with plant specimen vouchers (Stern 1988), the vouchers are deposited in various Australian and overseas herbaria ( Stern 1967: 27; Ilic 2002: pers. comm.). The disconnectedness of many wood specimens within international xylaria with their associated plant specimen vouchers can be explained by a combination of his- torical and modern-day factors. These include the separation of plant taxonomy and comparative wood anatomy into specialist disciplines; the exchange and duplication of plant specimen vouchers and wood specimens between xylaria and herbaria; storage issues; competing interests in plant specimen vouchers; and a shortage of funding and staff that has meant many xylaria are no longer curated. Unfortunately, this has meant that wood specimens are infrequently or never reconnected with their corresponding plant specimen vouchers in order to reflect any changes in plant names, or to correct misidentifications of the original material. For xylaria like the Australian Wood Collection (FPAw) it may have been at least 50 years since many of the vouchered wood specimens were originally collected. With plant names changing considerably in this time – as knowledge of the worldʼs flora increases and is revised – one cannot have full confidence in the original identifica- tions of these wood specimens without revisiting the corresponding plant specimen vouchers. Indeed, this research reveals that approximately 50% of the identifications given for a surveyed collection by R. Schodde and L.A. Craven of 285 vouchered wood specimens belonging to the US National Herbarium no longer match the iden- tification of their corresponding plant specimen vouchers (for the full survey see http: //home.iprimus.com.au/jabarker/Appendix1.doc). In many cases, the level of identi- fication had improved, demonstrating that reconnecting with voucher specimens can reinvigorate collections and increase their scientific potential. This paper also reveals that the value and function of plant specimen vouchers is often misunderstood. For example, in an informal survey conducted of existing Australian wood identification resources (Barker 2005), one correspondent2 replied: Probably 95% of the collection has been botanically authenticated, however we have not kept the botanical specimens as well. Specimens supplied by other institutions generally only have botanical name[s] and are assumed to be authenticated by the collector. It was found that routine identifications of unknown wood specimens for the public are being conducted by comparison with wood specimens that were not collected with a corresponding plant specimen voucher (unvouchered), or with reference wood specimens where the connection with the corresponding plant specimen vouchers has not been maintained. Moreover, many publications and keys are founded on reference wood specimens like these, which perpetuates the risk of misidentification by people who use the resources to assist with their identification work. Wood specimen numbers and plant specimen voucher numbers are not always both cited in publications making 2) This quote from the survey has been kept anonymous as it is not seen as necessary to expose individual practices. Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 07:21:14PM via free access 426 IAWA Journal, Vol. 29 (4), 2008 Barker — Vouchers in Wood Science 427 it impossible to revisit plant specimen vouchers to update names, and to revisit wood specimens to check wood descriptions. This paper aims to explain why plant specimen vouchers need to be at the founda- tion of all wood anatomical research, wood identification publications and keys, and routine wood identifications conducted for scholarly and scientific purposes. Further, all publications emanating from this research should cite both the wood specimen number and location and plant specimen voucher number and location (if different). In an often overlooked short communication, Baas (1980) has argued the importance of citing plant specimen vouchers of studied wood specimens, rather than xylarium accession numbers. This paper gives an additional background and more specific rec- ommendations. What is meant by a voucher? When discussing new publications or research, most taxonomists will ask: “Is it vouchered?” Vouchers are representative specimens of plants or animals. They are the foundation of and fundamental to any science that relies on the names of organ- isms to communicate information about that organism, e.g. zoology, botany, ecology, entomology, ornithology, archaeology, molecular studies and wood anatomy – acting as a ʻreceiptʼ for the research that is revisitable in the event of name changes. Vouch- ers are deposited in appropriate repositories (such as herbaria or museums) where they are properly curated so that they may be revisited to repeat experiments or check identifications. Any description or identification that is based on a biological specimen that has been separated from its associated voucher is subject to error. Furthermore, anyone who applies descriptions or uses an identification key based upon unvouchered biological specimens, or specimens that have lost their connection with associated voucher mate- rial, seriously jeopardises their own research. This is so even if the identifications are correct at the time for it does not protect a species against future name changes. Many scientific journals require research papers to be based on vouchered speci- mens. In other scientific journals, the use of vouchers in research is not a condition of publication but the practice is encouraged (see, for example, instructions to authors for Annals of the Entomological Society of America, Canadian Journal of Zoology and Subterranean Biology). In Subterranean Biology a waiver may only be issued by the editor of the journal and the lack of voucher specimens must be acknowledged in the paper (Cobolli 2006). In most sciences underpinned by named organisms, the importance of vouchers is addressed in papers (e.g. Stern & Chambers 1960; Martin 1990; Huber 1998; Agerer et al. 2000; Bates et al. 2004; Funk et al. 2005) and book sections ( Metcalfe & Chalk 1988: 5; Forman & Bridson 1989: 147) dedicated to the subject. Yet there are still many examples in technical and popular scientific literature where vouchers are discarded upon identification (e.g. Moore 2005), if they are collected at all (e.g. see examples in Meerman & Boomsma 1993; Hosking et al. 1996; Smith et al. 1998). Many wood specimens within international xylaria are ʻauthenticatedʼ by plant specimen vouchers – a branch with leaves, fruits and/or flowers collected from the Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 07:21:14PM via free access 428 IAWA Journal, Vol. 29 (4), 2008 Barker — Vouchers in Wood Science 429 same tree from which the wood specimen was removed. This plant specimen voucher is reserved for professional identification by botanists or plant taxonomists and is usu- ally deposited in an institutional herbarium. Why are plant specimen vouchers necessary in wood anatomical research? There