JSTOR Plants is the product of a philanthropically funded digitization effort consisting of specimen data and images from a few hundred institutions around the world. It does seem there's a surprising disconnect and lack of overlap between this "world’s largest database of digitized plant specimens" (hardly now, if ever) and GBIF, maybe especially when it comes to images (see rdmpage).
This could be used as another source for coordinating and prioritizing regional outreach and engagement and to fill taxonomic gaps. The first entry on the partners page—the Herbario Do Lubango—is missing, but another example is the world's largest collection of rust fungi, Purdue University's Arthur Fungarium. It may have only 3 per cent of its collection in JSTOR, but it is completely absent from GBIF. While the proportion of imaging may still be low, there's much more data for this collection (organized in Darwin Core, if I understood it correctly) than is represented in either place.
The situation at these collections will not be significantly different from elsewhere (understaffed, under-resourced, etc.), but they at least will have some experience with data sharing and may be ready to take further steps beyond the walled garden of JSTOR Plants. Mobilizing missing collections would also add to the available data in GRSciColl.
JSTOR Plants is the product of a philanthropically funded digitization effort consisting of specimen data and images from a few hundred institutions around the world. It does seem there's a surprising disconnect and lack of overlap between this "world’s largest database of digitized plant specimens" (hardly now, if ever) and GBIF, maybe especially when it comes to images (see rdmpage).
This could be used as another source for coordinating and prioritizing regional outreach and engagement and to fill taxonomic gaps. The first entry on the partners page—the Herbario Do Lubango—is missing, but another example is the world's largest collection of rust fungi, Purdue University's Arthur Fungarium. It may have only 3 per cent of its collection in JSTOR, but it is completely absent from GBIF. While the proportion of imaging may still be low, there's much more data for this collection (organized in Darwin Core, if I understood it correctly) than is represented in either place.
The situation at these collections will not be significantly different from elsewhere (understaffed, under-resourced, etc.), but they at least will have some experience with data sharing and may be ready to take further steps beyond the walled garden of JSTOR Plants. Mobilizing missing collections would also add to the available data in GRSciColl.
Dataset link: JSTOR Plants Home
Region: Global
Taxon: mostly Plantae
Type: Specimens / Material samples
Why is this important: Digitized (at least partially) collections that have previously been made available a combination of open and closed licences
Priority: Opportunistic
Comments: Many more
data-from
labels could be added—I've just used the available ones in a quick scan of the partners page.Dataholders contact information: listed by collection, accessible through partners page