The colonial legacy of herbaria

Abstract

Herbarium collections shape our understanding of the world’s flora and are crucial for addressing global change and biodiversity conservation. The formation of such natural history collections, however, are not free from sociopolitical issues of immediate relevance. Despite increasing efforts addressing issues of representation and colonialism in natural history collections, herbaria have received comparatively less attention. While it has been noted that the majority of plant specimens are housed in the global North, the extent of this disparity has not been rigorously quantified to date. Here, by analyzing over 85 million specimen records and surveying herbaria across the globe, we assess the colonial legacy of botanical collections and how we may move towards a more inclusive future. We demonstrate that colonial exploitation has contributed to an inverse relationship between where plant biodiversity exists in nature and where it is housed in herbaria. Such disparities persist in herbaria across physical and digital realms despite overt colonialism having ended over half a century ago, suggesting ongoing digitization and decolonization efforts have yet to alleviate colonial-era discrepancies. We emphasize the need for acknowledging the inconvenient history of herbarium collections and the implementation of a more equitable, global paradigm for their collection, curation, and use.

Northwest Native Plants: A Digital Space for Paleoethnobotanical Knowledges and Biocultural Heritage

“…Documenting and archiving ethnobiological knowledge for future generations is therefore among the many crucial goals of the discipline [10]. Online reference systems and digital herbaria are increasingly gaining traction as a means of increasing access to wider audiences [23,[28][29][30][31][32][33]. Such herbaria, however, are not free from the extractive measures of ongoing, structural colonialism, as the legacy of Linnaean taxonomy has resulted in the relocation of disproportionate number of plant specimens from across the globe into European and North American institutions and their associated systems of knowledge [34].…”

“…Such herbaria, however, are not free from the extractive measures of ongoing, structural colonialism, as the legacy of Linnaean taxonomy has resulted in the relocation of disproportionate number of plant specimens from across the globe into European and North American institutions and their associated systems of knowledge [34]. Within ethnobiology, fewer institutions have their biocultural collections digitized and available online, though the resources that do exist are visited frequently [33].…”

“…Keeping research and data free and not locked behind paywalls is extremely important in ensuring access to members of Indigenous communities and people from all socioeconomic backgrounds, thus facilitating a more inclusive research process [37]. It is further critical that those who work with descendent communities recognize the contributions made by Indigenous and local colleagues in the form of intellectual property rights and ensure equitable access to both archives and any products resulting from these collaborative relationships [33].…”

Indigenous peoples and local communities as partners in the sequencing of global eukaryotic biodiversity

“…These problematic practices have led to many Indigenous samples and knowledge being stored, accessed, and utilized by those outside of the country/territory of origin. The legacy of these practices can still be seen in institutional collections today 76,77 . Many of these extracted Indigenous resources have since been used for research outputs ("helicopter research") [78][79][80] or have been commodified ("biopiracy") [81][82][83] with no benefits being shared back to the community.…”

Shining Light on Labels in the Dark: Guidelines for Offensive Collections Materials

“…Many of the first attempts to bring awareness to the colonial nature and potential harm within natural history museums have focused on the display and contextualization of objects (Das and Lowe 2018). There is also increased understanding of the inverse relationship between the places where biodiversity exists and where the biodiversity collections are housed (Park et al 2021). More conversations are happening to acknowledge the potential violence associated with the colonial nature of amassing natural history collections (Ashby and Machin 2021).…”