At the risk of upsetting those non-collecting organisations calling themselves museums, I have to come out in favour of the "museums must have collections" camp. In most cases this also means that the institution not only maintains its existing collection but keeps adding to it (within a carefully defined acquisition and collections care policy) and researching it. If an institution exhibiting objects doesn't have its own collection then it's not a museum, it's a gallery. The owning and maintenance of a collection is the crux of the museum. To be a museum rather than just a collection requires the institution to interpret and display the items it holds to the public for their education, entertainment, etc. The UK Museums Association's definition sums up a museum as "an institution which collects, preserves, exhibits and interprets material evidence and associated information for the public benefit." That seems to say it all. Does this just make me a reactionary? I gather from the postings I've seen that the US experience is much less coherent than the one suggested above, and all manner of institutions can call themselves museums, and justify the name too. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * < > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Michael Cooper Nottingham Museums Registrar [log in to unmask] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * < > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *