The Hummingbird Collection of the Natural History and Science Museum of the University of Porto (MHNC-UP)

Study Extent

This collection holds multiple specimens from almost the entire range of hummingbirds in the American Continent, including several islands (e.g., Trinidad and Tobago). This coverage is lower than reality since almost half of the collection is not referenced to country level and precise geographic location is only available for a very small subset. A further issue is the common practice in the 19th Century to provide the name of the capital as the location and it is now difficult to discern specimens that were truly recorded near a capital and those that were not. Although most species have a geographical distribution that range more than one country, for species endemic at the country level, it was possible to increase the precision to the country level. The temporal range of the records lies between 1850 and 1920.

Sampling

This collection was mainly collected through a French Naturalist supplier (Deyrolle) very well regarded in terms of taxidermy and entomology, since its inception in 1831 (Fox 2012). There is no information regarding the original collectors. One such client of Deyrolle would be José Teixeira da Silva Braga Júnior, who purchased a vast collection of tropical hummingbirds over the years (which are ultimately the subject of this work), and created a museum in the “Palacete Braguinha”, that is now FBAUP (Faculdade de Belas Artes da Universidade do Porto). Unfortunately, many rich private collections would not outlive their owners by much, being disbanded, dissolved unto others or simply irreparably lost from lack of preservation or natural disaster. As for institutions, despite their roles of scientific and public education such as our local examples of the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Porto and its Museum, funding was often too scarce to allow the expanding of Natural History collections. However, in a rare stroke of luck, the outstanding collection of the “Museu Silva Braga” was not lost but instead, the legal heirs donated the collection to the Museum that would come nowadays to be known as the MHNC-UP.

Quality Control

The priority was to correct taxonomic, geographic and temporal data for each specimen, using validation lists for taxa and locations. For the taxonomic information, we used the BirdLife Checklist, because it matches the species evaluated in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. It includes information on the scientific and common names used by BirdLife, the Authority (for the original description of the taxon), BirdLife’s taxonomic treatment (recognised, not recognised or under review), the latest IUCN Red List category (e.g. Extinct, Vulnerable, Least Concern), the (selected) sources that recognize the taxon, the scientific and common names used by these sources, where relevant, a taxonomic note, and a record ID number unique to the taxonomic entity. For locations, following the Named Area Standards recommended by GBIF, it was chosen the ISO3166, a standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) that defines codes for the names of countries, dependent territories, special areas of geographical interest, and their principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states). The digital database was curated following the priorities already defined above. All data was stored in a relational online database. Taxonomic information for each specimen was validated automatically using the Species validation list (described above). When the species name did not match any name in the list, a process of curation was initiated, that relied on several bibliographical sources (de Schauensee and Phelps 1978, Schuchmann 1999, Williamson 2002, Fogden, Taylor, et al. 2014) and internet sources of digital information (e.g. www.avibase.bsc-eoc.org; neotropical.birds.cornell.edu; wikiaves.com.br), to match the old and synonym species names already in the database with the contemporary species name. Geographical information was validated using the location list to the Country level and temporal information was validated to the Decade or Year precision.

Method steps

1. The process of curation was first started with the establishment of a match between the digital data and the specimen. Then, using archival paper tags, each specimen’s main information (Museum ID, Species ID and other kind of data available) was tagged in the leg. Then, a digital photography was taken, to provide a long-term digital voucher of the specimen.

Concerning the taxonomic representation, MHNC-UP’s Hummingbird Collection covers all the evolutionary range of this family, including most of the genus, making it valuable for any study pertaining taxonomy, systematics or phylogeny of the Hummingbird family. Also, for more than 15% of the species, the number of specimens is higher than 10.

1. Animalia
   rank: kingdom
2. Chordata
   rank: phylum
3. Aves
   rank: class
4. Apodiformes
   rank: order
5. Trochilidae
   rank: family

This collection holds multiple specimens from almost the entire range of hummingbirds in the American Continent, including several islands (e.g., Trinidad and Tobago). This coverage is lower than reality since almost half of the collection is not referenced to country level and precise geographic location is only available for a very small subset. A further issue is the common practice in the 19th Century to provide the name of the capital as the location and it is now difficult to discern specimens that were truly recorded near a capital and those that were not. Although most species have a geographical distribution that range more than one country, for species endemic at the country level, it was possible to increase the precision to the country level.