Plant or animal, terrestrial or marine? Thoughts on specimen curation in university palaeontological teaching collections based on an example from Ohio, USA

Abstract

Palaeontological teaching collections at universities are critical to accurately con- veying aspects of palaeobiology and palaeoecology to students who, in turn, may eventually disseminate that information to the general public via a variety of museum-related pathways. Unfortunately, curatorial rigor is often less strongly rein- forced in university teaching collections than in museum collections, leading to unlabeled or mislabeled specimens, or specimens grouped into collections with an excessive amount of missing data. Herein I describe one illustrative example of confounding specimen labeling from the palaeontological teaching collections of the University of Akron Department of Geosciences (Akron, Ohio, USA). The studied specimen represents a portion of the distinctive stem of the common Upper Carboniferous sphenopsid plant Calamites, but is labeled as the stem of a crinoid (Phylum Echinodermata). Thus, a land plant has been attributed to a portion of a marine invertebrate, a misidentification that transcends not only biological king- doms but also the continental-marine discrepancy. Aside from major morphological differences between these two organisms, the specimen is preserved in a way that is nearly impossible for crinoid columns but is relatively common for Calamites. This find illustrates a major potential source of confusion or misinformation among palaeontology students (and future museum workers) and highlights the significance of scrutiny in teaching collections in addition to museum collections. Individuals working with teaching collections inherited from a predecessor or consisting of organisms with which they are relatively unfamiliar are encouraged to contact a specialist for consultation, identification and correction.