Concerning valuation of collections, I would like to offer some dissenting
opinion to the thoughtful comments of my esteemed colleague Sally Shelton.
Before we dash off to Manchester to decide how to proceed with valuation
of natural history collections, we need to ask the more fundamental question
of SHOULD we do this.  First, it is not necessary to do this to insure
a collection.  Many natural history collections (such as those here at KU)
can't be insured anyway (prohibited by state law).
 
But more importantly, do we wish to aid and abet the growing market in
natural history specimens?  It is hot now for fossils and trophy mounts,
but will spread to include study skins and fluid preserved things as soon
as someone figures out they can make money selling them.  I am reminded
of the well-meaning person who buys a parrot or iguana from a pet shop to
"rescue" it, while being opposed to the cruel commercial chain of events
that resulted in the deaths of many similar animals just to get that one
wild-caught specimen delivered to the retain establishment.  They are
unwittingly supporting the trade in wild-caught animals by their "rescue"
purchase.  It will certainly be the same with valuation of natural history
collections.  Put a price on the pinned beetle, and someone will begin
selling them, or trying to.
 
The point that too many collections have been dumped by museums because
they have been perceived as having no value is a good one.  However, when
the collection suddenly has the attribute of monetary value, why would this
prevent the same museum from being even more eager to get rid of it--this
time for money.  Here, Dr. Curator, you have 30 bird holotypes in your
collection, why, if we sell just a mere 10 of those we can afford cases
to protect the remainder of the collection.  Do you want to be making
those decisions?  How many stories of art museums selling off a few
prime paintings to buy themselves out of debt or build a new wing or
even buy other paintings have to be told before we recognize the pitfall
here?  True, most art museums do NOT sell their paintings.  But most
natural history museums don't dump their collections, either.
 
The market in natural history specimens will continue to grow whether
museums start the valuation of their collections or not.  My question
is, how much do you want to help it along?  If something can be
assigned a value for insurance, then it becomes worth something to
collectors.  Its really that simple.  The solution to the problems
mentioned by Sally regarding valuation of collections may not be
getting a value on them that reflects their uniqueness and cost of
care, the solution may be discouraging attaching a market value to
them in the first place, and in concentrating on legislation that will
limit the number of specimens on the market.
 
Lets ask the basic questions first.  Do natural history museums really
WANT their collections to have a market value?  Remember, there's a thin
line between priceless and worthless.
 
John Simmons