Cost of Collecting and Preparing Mammal Voucher Specimens for Natural History Collections Robert D. Bradley, Lisa C. Bradley, Heath J. Garner, and Robert J. Baker Abstract Natural history collections contain a wealth of biological information for scientists, edu¬ cators, the general public, and society. Determining the monetary value or worth of natural history collections is a difficult and controversial task; however, given that curators are often required by administrators to justify requests for personnel and space, as well as for developing plans for growth, loan policies, and accreditation, this exercise is often necessary. Molecular biology, genomics, and zoonotic studies have placed an increased emphasis on natural his¬ tory specimens through genetic-based studies; usage and subsequent destructive sampling of voucher specimens or their associated tissues has led to philosophical debates pertaining to loan requests and ultimately the costs required to maintain or replace specimens. For these reasons, we reviewed the costs associated with collecting and preparing mammal specimens, including tissue samples and karyotypes, deposited in the Natural Science Research Laboratory, Museum of Texas Tech University from 2000 to 2011. We determined that the average value was $41 for voucher specimens collected locally or regionally and $74 for specimens collected on international trips. Costs per collecting trip varied depending on the nature of the trip, accom¬ modations, transportation, number of personnel, trip success (number of specimens collected), etc. In total, 13,590 specimens were collected at an estimated cost of $756,067, resulting in an overall average cost of $56 per specimen. In addition, 4,974 person-days were expended during these collecting efforts. Key words: collecting costs, destructive sampling, monetary value, natural history col¬ lections, tissue loans, voucher specimens Introduction The Natural Science Research Laboratory 2006; Kovacic 2009; Mares 2009; Rowe et al. 2011) (NSRL), a division of the Museum of Texas Tech discussed the “value” of such collections in terms of University (MoTTU), is a repository for natural his¬ their role in the scientific community and aesthetic tory specimens and their associated data (physical, usefulness to society in general, the actual monetary written, and electronic). The NSRL contains four cost of collecting, preparing, documenting, archiving, research collections: Recent Mammals, Ornithol¬ and maintaining specimens in scientific collections (for ogy, Invertebrate Zoology, and Genetic Resources. perpetuity) rarefy has been addressed (Anderson and Recently, the Director of the MoTTU and Curators of Choate 1974; Lee et al. 1982; Yates 1985; Genoways the NSRL were directed by the Texas Tech University 2003). In addition, many museums do not acknowledge (TTU) administration to determine a monetary value collections as an “asset” in their financial statements or for the collections, equipment, and other assets housed positions; consequently, the recent literature provided in the NSRL. This precipitated an internal study by limited guidance concerning how best to estimate the the NSRL staff and led to a philosophical discussion financial worth of a specimen. of how to best estimate the monetary value of a scien¬ tific specimen. Although several publications (Pettitt We found placing a monetary value on speci¬ 1991; Allmon 1994; Lane 1996; Nudds and Pettitt mens to be an arduous and difficult undertaking. For 1997; Patterson 2002; Suarez and Tsutsui 2004; Baker example, natural history specimens document the 2 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University existence of new species, genetic variability of natural way (temporal sample, locality, genes, viruses, environ¬ populations, exposure to pollutants, presence or expo¬ mental exposure, habitat, etc.), determining a procure¬ sure to zoonoses and pathogens, and numerous other ment cost was the most realistic method of placing a biological data points; and when they are conserved monetary value on a specimen. Although this method and preserved under the concept of perpetuity, voucher has several limitations, by estimating an average cost specimens, tissues, and their associated data remain for fieldwork associated with collecting specimens, a long-term resource for future research in the disci¬ we could assign an approximate minimal value for the plines of systematics, genomics, ecology, zoonotics, entire collection. This approach also seemed appropri¬ ecotoxicology, and biomedicine. Under this scenario, ate given that the increased use of voucher specimens we could not effectively place a monetary value on and tissues in destructive sampling (DNA sources for the potential scientific usefulness of a specimen or the molecular systematics and genomics research) may genetic material that was collected for past, current, result in the eventual demise of specimens in collec¬ or future research, nor could we estimate the potential tions, thus requiring that they ultimately be replaced benefits of that research to society. Similarly, it was in the collection. impossible to attach a monetary value to threatened, endangered, or extinct biota represented in natural his¬ We present a summary of the monetary costs for tory collections. Further, natural history collections are conducting fieldwork to collect and prepare mammal valuable in the education of graduate and undergraduate specimens. We selected the Recent Mammals and Ge¬ students as they prepare for careers in the life sciences netic Resources Collections as the basis for estimates and medicine. More than 250 graduate students at TTU because they represent the most active collections of have utilized the resources at the NSRL for their thesis the NSRL in terms of current research projects, loans, and dissertation research; however, presently we cannot and growth. We based our estimations on field trips accurately assign a value that specimens contributed to taken by researchers at TTU from 2000 to 2011. Some their education or to the potential benefits the students of these trips were conducted solely for the purpose will contribute to science and society because of their of collecting specific taxa, whereas others were more training. opportunistic in their collection goals (generalized col¬ lecting). Our study was restricted to costs associated Therefore, a reproducible approach for this with collecting and preparing specimens (i.e., the cost study was to estimate the actual costs associated with of getting the specimen from the field to the museum). collecting the specimens. This approach allowed a The cost of archiving and maintaining mammal speci¬ minimal value to be estimated based on actual financial mens after they are deposited in the collections will be expenditures associated with collecting specimens. the focus of a future study. Although each voucher specimen is unique in its own Methods To provide a reasonable estimate, we used data multiple collecting trips to southern Texas (Chaparral obtained from a broad assortment of collecting trips Wildlife Management Area), brief collecting trips to (local, regional, and international) conducted by NSRL privately owned ranches in Clarendon, Matador, and personnel. A total of 61 trips were included in this Flomot, Texas, collecting trips to several localities in study and were subdivided into two categories: local Arizona, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, and or regional (50 trips), and international (11 trips). This collecting that occurred in conjunction with a Mam¬ approach was important to consider given the different malogy course taught annually at the TTU campus in types of circumstances and costs encountered during Junction, Texas. International trips included localities a local versus an international trip. In addition, we in Mexico, Honduras, Ecuador, Ukraine, Kyrgyz Re¬ included trips that varied relative to number of speci¬ public, and Malaysia. mens procured. Regional and local field trips included 3 Bradley et al.—Cost of Collecting and Preparing Specimens We separated costs into three primary categories. camped in tents or were provided free accommoda¬ The first contained the expenditures associated with tions in a bunkhouse, field station, or other facility). procuring the specimen (Table 1), including travel For international trips, typical costs included airfare expenses, meals, and lodging. Some expenses were (exception: Mexico), meals, and lodging, as well as straightforward and could be obtained directly from costs unique for travel to a specific place, such as vac¬ travel vouchers, field notes, and end-of-trip reports. In cinations, visas, permits, taxes, locally hired guides and cases for which detailed records were not maintained translators, and local vehicle rental and fuel. or if actual receipts were not available for a particu¬ lar item, we used a five-year average for a particular The second category pertained to the cost of pre¬ expense or alternatively a standard pre-determined paring a specimen in the field (Table 2). These costs allowance. This approach required estimation of the were estimated based on six representative field trips average quantity generally used for such an item and (Honduras 2001, Honduras 2004, Kyrgyz Republic the number of resulting specimens that were either col¬ 2007, Mexico 2008, Texas/Oklahoma 2010, and Texas/ lected or prepared as a result of that cost. University Oklahoma/Kansas 2011). The values took into account -determined per diem and mileage allowances for food the relative frequency of the various preparation types or fuel were used when actual costs were not known. (63% skin, skull, and post-cranial preps, 27% fluid Typical costs for regional or local trips included ground preps, 10% other such as skeletal maerial-only or skull- transportation (vehicle rental and fuel), meals, and lodg¬ only, and 15% karyotyped, etc.). ing (lodging costs varied, as the collectors occasionally Table 1. Explanation of figures used in calculating the average cost per specimen. Item Cost Salaries TTU Faculty $277/day (2000-2005); $300/day (2006-2011) TTU Post doc $135/day (2000-2005); $140/day (2006-2011) TTU Graduate Students $71/day (2000-2005); $74/day (2006-2011) Undergraduate students Not included in calculations, although one might use minimum wage as an estimate of their labor costs. Other - faculty and students from other institutions Salaries for faculty and graduate students of other US and universities (US and foreign) that assisted in institutions were included at the same rate as TTU faculty field work and students. Salaries for foreign participants were not included in calculations, unless they were paid a stipend from field trip funds. Air travel Actual expenses from travel records Ground transportation $.50/mile for personal vehicles; $70/day + $.38/mile after 200 miles for rented vehicles Meals Per diem or actual expenses if known; otherwise, $10/ person/day Lodging Per diem or actual expense if known; otherwise, $75/day/ room (4 people per room) Specimen preparation $3/specimen (see Table 2) Standardized additional costs (SAC) $295/trip ($100 trap replacement; $100 net replacement; $45 bait; $20 batteries; $20 disinfectant; $10 foil) Other Other expenses as determined from travel records (visas, vaccinations, fees, shipping, etc.) 4 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University Table 2. Explanation of our calculation of average cost for field preparation of a specimen. Costs were based on expenses from six representative NSRL field trips that resulted in 3,356 voucher specimens collected and prepared. All values were rounded to the nearest dollar. Costs take into account the relative frequency of the various specimen sizes, preparation types, and procedures (e.g., skin/skull/skeleton specimens,fluid specimens, or skeleton-only specimens; frozen tissues, lysis tissues, blood samples obtained; karyotypes prepared). Also taken into account are items that might be prepared in advance of atrip in larger quantities than actually needed based on the number of specimens subsequently collected, such as pre-printed tags and tanks of liquid nitrogen, which cannot be saved for use on subsequent trips. Item Total Cost for Six Trips Data Entry Items Personal specimen catalog pages $56 Field notebook paper $94 Tissue tube stickers $1,223 Tags (skin, skull, alcohol - includes used and unused) $191 TK binders $81 TK pages $252 String for fluid and skin tags $46 Data entry pens $334 Skin/Skull Prep Items Cotton $14 Corn meal $108 Wire $134 Thread and needles $108 Polyfil $69 Straight pins $225 Alcohol Prep Items Formalin and ethanol $191 Tissue and Blood Sample Items Cryotubes $1,222 Nobuto strips $624 Lysis buffer $103 Blood storage tubes $265 Liquid nitrogen $380 Karyotype Preparation $2,635 5 Bradley et al.—Cost of Collecting and Preparing Specimens Table 2. (cont.) Item Total Cost for Six Trips Miscellaneous Isoflurane (euthanizing drug) $1,007 Gloves $537 Total Specimen Preparation Costs $9,899 Total Specimens Collected 3,356 Average Cost Per Specimen $3 Regarding the cost of preparing specimens in the $35,000/year, or $ 135/workday; and graduate students, field, many variables play a role, including the size of $ 18,460/year, or $71/workday. For trips conducted the specimen, the type of preparation (traditional skin/ 2006-2011, rates were increased to adjust for inflation: skull/post-cranial preparation, alcohol preservation, faculty, $78,000/year, or $300/workday; post-doctoral etc.), and any associated materials collected and the students, $36,500/year, or $ 140/workday; and graduate manner in which they were prepared (frozen and/or students, $ 19,240/year, or $74/workday. lysis buffer preserved tissues, karyotypes, toe clips, blood samples, etc.). Thus, field preparation costs Once collectors reach the field destination (col¬ proved to be challenging to document and estimate on lecting site), the cost to physically capture specimens a per-specimen basis. Based on purchases of prepara¬ may be relatively minimal and include only the cost tion materials (wire, cotton, thread, corn meal, tissue of the bait and other incidentals. The cost of non¬ tubes, labels, chemicals, etc.) for the six representative consumable materials, such as traps and nets, proved field trips, and the number of specimens collected and difficult to factor on a per-trip basis. For example, prepared during those six field trips, we estimated an Sherman traps may be damaged beyond repair or lost, average cost of $3 per specimen for preparation ex¬ but the majority of the traps are used on multiple trips penses (Table 2). This estimate is considered to be rea¬ and perhaps for several years. Mist nets, on the other sonably accurate for local and regional trips; however, hand, are easily damaged and may be discarded after for international trips where airline restrictions (weight, a few weeks or even a single night of use. Based on seasonal embargos, or transport rules) may necessitate the collecting experience of the authors, we estimated “in country” purchases, those costs actually may be an average replacement cost of $100 per trip for Sher¬ significantly higher. For example, purchase of liquid man traps (loss of six traps) and $100 per trip for mist nitrogen, absolute methanol, and other supplies may be nets (loss of two nets). We did not include the cost of greater than five times more expensive than if the item other standard field trip supplies and equipment, such was purchased in advance through the university. as bat bags, bait bags, liquid nitrogen tanks, dissecting tools, scales, action packers, pinning trunks, coolers, A third category was average daily salaries of trap boxes, camping stoves and lanterns, tents, folding all paid personnel (faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and tables, lights, and personal gear. Although we acknowl¬ graduate students) involved in collecting specimens edge that these expenses are significant and contribute (Table 1). No cost was assigned to undergraduate substantially to the cost of conducting fieldwork, many students and unpaid volunteers who participated in of these items are considered one-time costs or may be field trips. We used the average annual salaries for the part of the collector’s personal camping equipment and Department of Biological Sciences at TTU, and daily supplies, and are difficult to factor on a per-trip basis. rates were based on 260 workdays per year. For trips conducted 2000-2005, salaries were as follows: faculty, Finally, the average cost per specimen was de¬ $72,000/year, or $277/workday; post-doctoral students, termined by totaling travel costs (transportation, food, 6 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University lodging, etc.), cost associated with trapping and prepar¬ late 1990’s, it became NSRL policy to collect samples ing specimens, personnel salaries, and miscellaneous of blood, heart, kidney, liver, lung, muscle, and spleen expenses per collecting trip, and then dividing that total from each individual specimen). However for our by the number of specimens collected on that particular estimations, a specimen was considered “collected” if trip. The term “specimens collected” typically refers any material was obtained for research purposes and to skin-and-skull (and post-cranial in most cases) accessioned and cataloged into the NSRL, including voucher specimens and the associated tissue samples. blood samples and genetic samples (e.g., toe clips, ear (In the 1970’s, heart, kidney, and liver samples were punches) obtained from mark-recapture studies. archived for each specimen; however, beginning in the Results For the period 2000-2011, 50 local and regional $452,801, for an overall average cost of $74 per speci¬ collecting trips were evaluated. These efforts resulted men; the cost per specimen per field trip ranged from in 7,454 specimens or samples being procured, at an $39 to $279 (Table 4). In total, 13,590 specimens were estimated cost of $303,266, for an overall average cost collected at an estimated cost of $756,067, for an over¬ of $41 per specimen; the average cost per specimen per all average cost of $56 per specimen. Total man-days field trip ranged from $17 to $767 (Table 3). For the spent collecting these specimens were 4,974 (2,482 same time frame, 11 international collections resulted local or regional and 2,492 international). in 6,136 specimens collected at an estimated cost of Discussion Based on our calculations of expenses and num¬ ($74). Given the additional costs normally associated ber of specimens obtained during 61 fieldtrips (50 local with international travel (airfare, local vehicle rental, or regional and 11 international), conducted during lodging, visas, permits, etc.), we expected that interna¬ 2000-2011, the overall cost per specimen averaged $41 tional trips would have generated an even greater cost for local and regional trips and $74 for international per specimen than would have a local or regional trip trips, with an average of $56 per specimen (all trips). where rodents generally comprised a greater percent¬ This estimate reflects the average cost to collect and age of the specimens collected. However, at least three prepare a specimen in either a local or international factors appeared to play a role in reducing the overall venue; it does not take into account intrinsic or future cost per specimen associated with the international trips values such as scientific potential, uniqueness to col¬ conducted by our personnel. First, many of our inter¬ lections, rarity, etc., that could be assigned to a specific national trips were to tropical regions of high species voucher specimen (see Introduction), or the costs as¬ diversity and richness, and the number of specimens sociated with identification of specimens, curation, or (particularly bats) collected often greatly surpassed the development of a searchable database. Therefore, our number collected during local and regional trips. For estimates and data should be viewed only as the actual example, for the 50 local and regional trips, the aver¬ cost of collecting and preparing a voucher specimen in age number of specimens collected was 149, whereas the field and transporting it to the museum. These post¬ for the 11 international trips, the average number of field costs, in reality, could double the cost assigned to specimens collected was 558. Second, international a voucher specimen. trips generally were of longer durations, thereby increasing the overall number of trap-nights and net¬ One observation gleaned from the data was the ting opportunities. Third, during international trips, average cost per specimen estimates for local/regional local professionals and students often accompanied trips ($41) compared to international collecting trips the field party to gain experience or to take advantage Bradley et al.—Cost of Collecting and Preparing Specimens 1 ss a S Ov C- 'it CO CM vo CM CM 'St l> O s MCO—O* 0G G0O GvoO GcoO GCOO GvoO GO GinO GinO GCOO GinO GCMO Gf—O4 GCOO G'tO GCMO u e * J8§S ^^ "£c3 •0 iO<c-0iDnx GC0d«Oh) t<<oiDu 66 0i> CinM| vCMo CvOo 00 CCMM C>On CCcOO- C0O0 v0'Sot 0vOo' OOCMvv rC-MH oC'SOvt U ^ v£_ ^s^po3 "sO^RSa me-£k23 C<<DDO gCofTOoo GCOCOMOVO GoCoMvvO" gC'icdnM-o-‘ G0COt-MO' g0Ot0>ov" G000vo00O" Gv0000oO" G'CsMOt G''OoSSvVOtt" GCMO GC'0tOO GCOtM-Ov" G"CC0S0OOOt" GCCOMMOv" § is •S Q u in in in >n >n in in in in m in in >n m in S3, ^ <GO1 GOCOMn- GoCMvO GoCMvO gOCMov GOCMOv GoCMvO GoCMvO GoCMvO GoCMvO GoCMvO GoCMvO GOCMOv GOCMOv GoCMvO GoCMvO ^ .£3 Eh «9 S § o a ? dO 2 CoOo OoCMv v0(cid:9632)0o- CvCMOo OOCMv CCMO OOCMO C>>Mnn O"VSOOt OOCMVO OOVVO CO0O0v vCOMof OOCMVV 0C~0H- <aD, a. GO 60 go GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO qR u^ GO p 'I ^ >3 ttf) w ?s .g CN ^ 5x) ,d 4d jd _d 43 4d .03 jd > S> "O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o goVOo got"o- govoo goc~o- gvoo^ T3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O dd O 1— VO VO vo vo T— vo 't T-~ VO l-H T-~ T— i—H O S- 5 CO CO co„ CMn CO^ CO CO CMft <n COft CO^ CO^ CO^ co CO ,_t ,_r ,_, ,_T ,_r ,_r ,_r ,_T ,_r ,_r ,_r ,_r ,_r ,_r ,_r 6 GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO H in 00 O 00 CM O in VO O O 00 in O 0 in c- 'it OV CM 't '5' 'it OV CM in VO Ov ^it cn 00 <n c- VO •n VO in in oc» co^ Ov vo CM in" 0" vo" in" O'" vo" 't in" 00" C"" vo" vo" >n" vo" GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO co CdLh) Q<D Ph" O £S3 0 (cid:9632)P^-tT ^Q S3 C0O S3 r0o S3 ^0t 1Phn" O fS3e" O-st S3 COM fSe3" 0CM S3 c0o gS3f 0CM S3 C0M S3 COM CPOh" OCM dOn Ocn CO, 01—1 0>0n" CO CM C^M cvoo" C^M cVoO" 'St co" S3 CM 1m—1 q0o0" ^t1 OcoV" ^^t coov" c'-Ho co" co1 ocoo" CM co" O1—1 cmo" -H gvoo" OV OV Ov 3 &fc < cfic3 < a d "OOd 1KaS, ^V£H £aPh g£i<h M & dPc33h —1 O u u O 'm' in vo vo O Q. o o O COoM COM COM oo coo CoO ^ot ^ot ocm sod oCM oCM CdcMd oCM oCM CCcMdh oCM oCM oCM oCM d03 o dcd V1—O5 o« Oo vo to——i i CoOM 't1 oo tC—OIH 'oof CM *—i cm CM -H CM Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University <osO-dnhh. "ggj3d 6CM0 C<On d6000- 6NNOO0 6oCO0 6CCOO0 6CinM0 6OdN0- 6CCO0' 6lC>O0 6CNMO0 Nd6O0- 6OinN0 6din0- © JD so rj Oh —j ..Ii , 05 -oSdj no d id Ed o i> <d od <u co C*/3 E =S Tf WB•k 1COB&/D3J 6CoNN0 f hrhh6O<oHHHr0- 6CdinO0- " 6dNOoOO0"f 6occoooo0^" 6OoOdON-0" 6CC0inO00l ^' 60C0inO040 ' 6o<iinn0n" 6NCCdO0"ll 6Oini>noN0" Twr&n>f\ 6ctoC>o0d^" 60NcimnO00"^ 6CO0MN00 H 1/3 © cm <o &c©mNo t" c6OmN0 C6oMn0 6COMN0 6O<NN0 6OC0nl &OCNol 6OcmN0 6OCN0l 6OC0nl NO 6OCN0l 6O0N40 6OC0nl 5d Bo a * ddno-- Od" Cl dNr-O- NO cd d 6N0t 6d0- 6 & 60 co £2 '-5bob d cci ccS ccS CCS "a "a e2 ccS hoJ oo P©aQo dd-- ddCD-- NCOO OOOO OOinON OQinO\ 00CD00 d0C0-| C01uO0 so 6,_0r 6,_0r 6cm0" 6,_0T 6,_0T 6,_0T 6cm0" d- so V C3 g tOJ d o ON CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM mr- OCN d- in CO OgO ©05h .§3 6d0- fS 6o000 6NNOO0 6NNOO0 6OOO0 6OCO0- 6O000 6OOO0 6O000 CN sdco- o 6c0- 6NO0 GCa<rOe/D35t 6COCoMoO0" —NolSi-rHOf,ri sod_c_o--" sdd,—o--r 6dd,—0--r 6odC0-' sddCcmo--"| soO°oo'„ 6o0rO-00'f 6o0,1—'-00'T 60!Nc—mO00"^1 oHwN6O^I sC0N_o_O0Or ' 6C0N,—O00OT ' C6dN_M_O0-" 5 UO<o-HhD uCCo/5"1 CO1P—Oh1" 6oCinO0 OF=dsCN> ©V5s5^3 i S2PwhH" / sO^o" rP—h" r OON ^-VPhhO^" OdCO- ^^Ph^" iGO-HO tP—hh" Oin i2P-Hh2" VOGOO '^ivP'——hoi"^ OdiG-HO- COppg / c6Oo®" 2Ph2H" gOCr—oO1" CTBdBBMf "15>U/53> odPh"?" ^iCp—Mpi 'CorsjO'" COiPnOh" ON r~l i—i NO >n NO g)—oo1 "uUdh •HbCBd-Ds" |XUMh •~bPBB3>" |tMX— •HbCBB-sl" |XMUh •*—bCBB->3" |XUMh HbCBB-Ds" UMXh •b3Bi"1 XH •b3B" |XH (cid:9632)*|—bCBBD"! XUMh 1HbCBB-D3" XUMh •C<—L/5> s Qoughtery WMA, 2XHHbOD" uboB2d" XH uoB X s) Day 7 85 in CO CO in NO in in in 7 44 CO CO CM ( oCoM $o OOO CoO do- oin NoO or-' 0o0 OoN o go 2 oCD 6BO0Dh o^H HpPs Cd>M3 oCd>M3 oCdM oCdtMo oCd>M3 oCd>M3 oCdM oCdM oCdM PHPQ cinn oo oC0M0 COM Cr-M- /3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 /3 o o NO in S S CM CM CM Bradley et al.—Cost of Collecting and Preparing Specimens (cid:9632)_ Ch t&oo aya $33 $29 $96 $109 $138 $94 $767 $323 $184 $236 $52 $44 $85 $56 $199 $106 rj Oh ^ 0O T3 t/3 4<-DJ GSOP g2 J"3o 3 63 in o GO 20 CM GO oc r- 39 GO 28 29 o 19 u OW3S <c383g ocCrmDf 0,g_0or Cp,_OT 0COoD0f NCCrDDf- 0(cid:9632),i*_n0j-r GC,G_OOOT Cp,_Dr CP,G_DOr Po,G_OT COrNf CrnNf CoCrOOcf rnp,_-r Oa,G_O<c\ 2,021 O Oh m go go GO go GO go GO GO GO GO GO GO GO $ H u< OgCNoc ocgmoc OCoMon OgCNo CionM OCGNO OcGmOc onGOc OrG)OC OrG)Oc OG(NOc GOCNOC COGNOC O<GNOC OCGNOc 295 0O G'* go GO &o go go &o y$ GO GO GO GO GO GO GO $ § .o 22& 3c&3 mOoo gCoDoo VOO*Ot yCITD^) go GoGOO yCD, GO Gnr-O GCNO GGOO GOGOO GC0O0O GC0O0O GOCOO $56 00 sin Oh bfl O 'T5rw3sb 3C(3 3C0 303 yiinn> yoCOo 303 3cs "ccS (S (S K3 ~ke33 ~(323 "(s333 "cc3 n/a hJ (cid:9632)"to o o o o in o o o o o O o o O O 0 3<D CCMD CCDO oCO o CH—DH ~ CH—NH Ho—H o on on nCO CN CCNO CCDN Nn" 24 oo go GO y^ y5- y$ y$ y^, GO GO GO GO $ 2 ¬ OTs2=33 importa tion $163 $175 $90 $350 $186 $60 $90 $162 $90 $90 06$ $90 $441 $90 $90 $90 H j30C(OiO/3 yC<MN> 60CoO0o0 &O0$N0o gCoNo g'p5o' GCoOO GOoOl-- Go<-^p GoO- G^OOtr- GCONCO GCCpDDO GpO 00 GopO $1,340 ll opf o00 opf O Pf OCN Opff <cpm7T? cGpTOfT GCpOOf ^o tCp/Off o^ Cpf/ oo Pf o Pf O CpOf ZCpSNf) ip-Hf oO oE o^ F, 4S) C^O cOf/-f ^CM Ct/Nf 12 GCNO go CO CO GO GO O cCO/f o^ oCOn Tf N" CO 2 wCN" <1—N1 &GOrf 5 (I 3oo Clarendoi rf TX Clarendoi <—r TX EHXoo2 Ih^S.Jj H<iOE—l<T £rlingua, TX MsXH£O3i XHPo2oh 2sO-T XHPo2oh EHXsoo HXPo2oh EXHo2o M<a Ss^" EH_Xgoo EXHo2o Flomot, TX .2 cz> 3 ^ p Q Q w <Ci—Ei otj CooooD s s& ooCrM- 3*-4 3*—5 GSCODP O3 <Oh s GOCODh G£(ODP O3 O3 <5 ^CCNOt(cid:9632) (cid:9632)oOxl- rG-0 ^oo|- o CCDN oor~ 1 oor- 3O•—C i o ooo CINO- ooo O00c o^ oCONc oro- CCMO OooO CGCMOO 0oo0 3OC §o r- o ICNO- 0oo0 'cC(mOt OooO £ CN CN CN CO CM CN On CM 00 ’—1 CM CM CN CN CN i—1 CN CM CM —1 CM CM CM CM CM CM 10 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University to d © fi pe a g p too 'o cli - rj O, e o r t o to ,JOL| t2/5 hO_i trtoon¬ ar- X <13 <D 03 e e r e w £B1 t1o Nirr-nO--‘ OO°non\" »m0in0* ' tCNooDN\ C0iinnN0" ettooons¬"; C00moN00 NNC2NOO ens that £ a y y y y y y fc*na m ci e p u in in in in in in *n om e s ON On ON On On On cto s y yCN yCN yCN yCN yCN yCN yi> Tyt on. or tho .y5j69j | .1^Dc2 oONNO ycOiXnn yin cN0nO0 yocXcn^o mtmNyoO NOytN"ONO er at Juncti pecimen) f Cl. ent 5/s C 3 to h 1. &0 03 c $ THO3-l y ~to ~c as Te osts ( oo ooCNo mno tNNoOO e Tex nly” c yto- {CyfNj y th e-o b u (cid:9632)<§§s S§03 a N0CNO0 cNcXr-nnO* ycNcr'nnO-" On «ot©ii-on/H$- gOON e charged count “tiss H e c f a d o ar nt ‘1C/C53 yotoo; y00cn00" ^ ymncnyj" yCccnN;" y0occn0»" yitm—o">; yCO1^N T3 and bo s take i _ _ , 'tao m ue XZ<2=u)s xi<°D (tg(£COo/D 3 yPCOin-NnT ^oCN CO*X•~f* Ocyitno Co^xf occitnno yCcPnNh" o<,P—nhyl O>c>n0n" crOcPsnh^N" N0sWSO0 -k%a C0trosN0¬ 2 to xt<tooD bined roo ration val Table 3. (ccont.) .Qt2too ^wQ_ z©tt>oo/i<ooCL^ OttNoooX-£ )ttttX /ooo3^ooC N3XO taotoo (cid:9632)gg=>sf 9oaOto ttt>/ooT<OB ht No"aH Qit oJO O| g .-Ct£aLoh ^^<t3o00Oton33X ) x^CISLh <§ (cid:9632)gtg>o *2gOt9o • 2C52^Oj r<N0ttxOtOooo3Xn ) .ttEOttooooh t00.o.33 1PCOHCZG) CCi>NN **3,0P£tt0tOo-tt-9oHaooHoo3X ) b For Junction trips, “meals” is the com cFor the Chaparral trips, specimen prepa and released.