What does it mean to be wild? Assessing human influence on the environments of nonhuman primate specimens in museum collections

Abstract

Objectives Natural history collections are often thought to represent environments in a pristine natural state—free from human intervention—the so‐called “wild.” In this study, we aim to assess the level of human influence represented by natural history collections of wild‐collected primates over 120 years at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH). Materials and Methods Our sample consisted of 875 catarrhine primate specimens in NMNH collections, representing 13 genera collected in 39 countries from 1882 to 2004. Using archival and accession information we determined the approximate locations from which specimens were collected. We then plotted location coordinates onto publicly available anthrome maps created by Ellis et al. (Global Ecology and Biogeography, 2010, 19, 589), which delineate terrestrial biomes of human population density and land use worldwide since the 1700s. Results We found that among primates collected from their native ranges, 92% were from an environment that had some level of human impact, suggesting that the majority of presumed wild‐collected primate specimens lived in an environment influenced by humans during their lifetimes. Discussion The degree to which human‐modified environments may have impacted the lives of primates currently held in museum collections has been historically ignored, implicating unforeseen consequences for collection‐based research. While unique effects related to commensalism with humans remain understudied, effects currently attributed to natural phenomena may, in fact, be related to anthropogenic pressures on unmanaged populations of primates.

Investigating factors of metabolic bone disease in baboons (Papio spp.) using museum collections

“…It is also possible that non‐captive baboons are still experiencing environments which are not entirely free from human influence, leading to anthropogenic changes in food availability. Eller et al ( 2021 ) analyzed 875 NHP specimens in the NMNH collections and found that over 90% of the NHP specimens do not come from so‐called “wild” settings as often assumed. Instead, these animals lived in habitats within terrestrial biomes of varying degrees of anthropogenic influence, designated and mapped as “anthromes” by Ellis et al ( 2010 ).…”

“…Instead, these animals lived in habitats within terrestrial biomes of varying degrees of anthropogenic influence, designated and mapped as “anthromes” by Ellis et al ( 2010 ). The sample used by Eller et al ( 2021 ) included 41 of the 51 baboon specimens that are present in the current study. Of the 41 specimens with anthrome information, most (95.1%) lived and died in seminatural, rangeland, and cropland localities in southern and eastern Africa (Eller et al, 2021 ; Supplementary Table 2 ).…”

“…The sample used by Eller et al ( 2021 ) included 41 of the 51 baboon specimens that are present in the current study. Of the 41 specimens with anthrome information, most (95.1%) lived and died in seminatural, rangeland, and cropland localities in southern and eastern Africa (Eller et al, 2021 ; Supplementary Table 2 ). Within these environments, baboons likely consumed some amount of human food (Fehlmann et al, 2017 ), although it is unknown if and how these factors may have contributed to nutritional disorders in some cases.…”

“…The sample used by Eller et al (2021) included 41 of the 51 baboon specimens that are present in the current study. Of the 41 specimens with anthrome information, most (95.1%) lived and died in seminatural, rangeland, and cropland localities in southern and eastern Africa (Eller et al, 2021;Supplementary Table 2).…”

Specimens as individuals: Four interventions and recommendations for great ape skeletal collections research and curation

“…The presence of great ape biological remains within natural history collections is largely the result of nineteenth to early 20th-century "Western" naturalists and animal dealers who traveled to the colonies of their empires, collecting dead specimens and live animals to bring back to museums, zoos, or for private sale. 37,38 As a result, great ape skeletal remains were a product of more than just the pursuit of scientific specimens as they were obtained under extractivist conditions and directly relate to colonial power and violence. 38 Extractivism is a colonial logic, practice, and mode of accumulation involving the removal of large quantities of natural resources from colonized regions for the benefit of the colonial powers.…”