Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 17:51 25 March 2008
Historical Biology
Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2008, 1–10
Crystal creatures: context for the Dublin Blaschka Congress
Julia D. Sigwarta,b*
a
School of Biology and Environmental Science, University College Dublin, Ireland; bNational Museum of Ireland – Natural History,
Dublin, Ireland
The ‘Dublin Blaschka Congress’ was conceived as a gathering to bring together the diverse scholarly disciplines that are
uniquely, if eccentrically, joined in the study of scientific glass models. Leopold and Rudolf Blaschka are best known for
the ‘Glass Flowers’ of Harvard but in the nineteenth century they also invented techniques to sculpt anatomically
accurate marine invertebrates in glass. In the course of preparing the Congress and a coordinated temporary exhibition,
much new information was uncovered about the collections of Blaschka objects in Ireland, including a total of nearly 800
surviving models. The history of the artists shows a clever business model that was designed to tap a niche market in the
contemporary fascination with natural history, and improved through the course of several decades with input from
clients and their own passion for understanding their biological subjects. From a modern perspective, a single Blaschka
glass model of a marine invertebrate can embody biology, the history of science, craftsmanship, glass chemistry,
aesthetics and art. This ability to cross interdisciplinary bridges is a singular strength of the Blaschka works, and is
evident in the published proceedings of the Congress.
Keywords: history of science; invertebrates; glass model; Irish science
Introduction – Dublin Blaschka Congress
Leopold (1822–1895) and Rudolf (1857–1939) Blaschka
were talented glass artists and unlikely champions of
biological sciences (Figure 1). The father and son
possessed an artistic talent and business acumen to fill a
niche for the contemporary boom natural history
museums, supplying original glass replicas of hundreds
of species of marine invertebrates. All their pieces were
made by assembling glass crafted by flameworking,
melting and bending glass with hand tools (Figure 2).
Their prolific two-generation career produced exquisite
sculptures of marine life and the famous ‘glass flowers’ of
Harvard University. Today, the enduring fascination with
their work resonates with artists and scientists alike. In
capturing the ephemeral nature of soft-bodied invertebrates, developmental series, and the complex structures
of many plants, the Blaschkas accidentally succeeded in
preserving and making solid what even the fossil record
finds to be impossible.
In 2006, University College Dublin (UCD) and the
National Museum of Ireland – Natural History
(NMINH) jointly hosted the first scholarly meeting on
the life and works of the Blaschkas: the Dublin Blaschka
Congress. The significant collection of Blaschka models
held by the NMINH inspired the focus to attract
international scholars to share their research and
knowledge on the history, art, and science of Blaschka
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 0891-2963 print/ISSN 1029-2381 online
q 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/08912960701677291
http://www.informaworld.com
works. Blaschka models are held in more than 50
institutions worldwide, although holdings have not been
confirmed for many (see http://www.ucd.ie/blaschka
for a provisional list). At the Dublin Blaschka Congress,
participants from across Europe and North America
met for three days in Dublin to share talks, posters, and
extensive discussion.
To coincide with the Dublin Blaschka Congress, the
author (JDS) curated a temporary exhibit in NMINH,
Crystal Creatures, which examined more than 35
Blaschka models next to their counterparts from nature.
Crystal Creatures focussed on six main animal
representations, presenting several examples of each
Blaschka models, next to preserved specimens of the
same animal species. The models were drawn from
the five Irish collections of Blaschka models, enabling
the exhibit to present up to five different examples, or
editions, of each model.
All natural history museums, including the NMINH,
are essentially scientific institutions, and this instils
certain biases on the perception, care, and finally
exhibition of objects like Blaschka models. Several
thousand models of Blaschka animals (as well as the over
4300 botanical models in the Harvard Museum of
Natural History) are known to survive, worldwide, and
the vast majority are in the care of natural history
museums and scientific departments of universities.
Blaschka works fall into the curious position of
Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 17:51 25 March 2008
2
J.D. Sigwart
Figure 1.
Leopold (left) and Rudolf (right) Blaschka. Images courtesy of the Corning Museum of Glass, Corning, USA.
effectively being art objects housed in scientific
collections, and in many ways do not fit in the
conventional ‘pigeonholes’ we use to define and
segregate our disciplines (Petro and Hudson 2002).
One goal of the Dublin Blaschka Congress was to bring
together the disparate perspectives that are common to
current discussion of the Blaschkas and their works. Not
only are they fascinating objects in their own right, but
they may serve as the best possible tool to examine the
Figure 2. Group of tools belonging to Rudolf and/or Leopold
Blaschka. Collection of The Corning Museum of Glass,
Corning, USA. Image courtesy of the Corning Museum of
Glass.
overlap – and frequent misunderstanding – between the
fields of ‘Art’ and ‘Science’ as we perceive them today.
Models in Ireland
There are approximately 800 surviving Blaschka glass
models in Irish collections. All of the surviving collections
were represented in the Crystal Creatures exhibit
(Table 1). The NMINH collection is by far the largest,
including more than 500 pieces, of which over 300 have
been part of the museum’s display collection. The four
universities that also hold Blaschka models all bought
their pieces independently in the same period, as is clear
from the Blaschkas’ sales records (e.g. Blaschka 1882).
Handwritten notes in the accession registers in the
archives of the NMINH show that individual models
were traded or loaned from NMINH to universities in
Dublin and Belfast (NMINH 1882, 1886). The individual
pieces involved have not been identified, although
Trinity College Dublin and UCD both have considerable
collections in their own right. There are no known
surviving Blaschka models in either Queen’s University
Belfast or the Ulster Museum.
The four Irish universities that hold Blaschka models
historically had, and largely still maintain teaching
collections of zoological specimens, which continue to
be used for practical demonstrations in teaching anatomy
to university science students. In fact, Blaschka models
Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 17:51 25 March 2008
Historical Biology
3
Table 1. Blaschka pieces in collections in Ireland. Historical names of institutions as noted are from the period when Blaschka
models were originally acquired. The first purchase for University College Cork is only known to be prior to December 1880 when
distribution for Britain and Ireland was taken over by R. Damon. All dates are based on sales records and correspondence archived in
the Rakow Research Library, Corning Musuem of Glass. No models are known to survive in Queen’s University Belfast.
Approximate number
of Blaschka models
Institution
Historical name
University College Dublin
Royal College of Science,
Dublin
Queen’s College Cork
Queen’s College Galway
Trinity College Dublin
Science and Art Museum,
Dublin
University College Cork
National University of Ireland, Galway
Trinity College Dublin
National Museum of Ireland – Natural
History Division
Queen’s University Belfast
were regularly used in teaching invertebrate zoology in
UCD until the early twenty-first century, and are still
used occasionally in several of the Irish universities.
This is the most recent known example worldwide of
Blaschka models still in use for their original purpose –
teaching biology. The other most recently documented
example of this is in the Humboldt University, Berlin,
where Blaschka models were used as teaching aids
in 1995 (H. Reiling, personal communication; see
Hackethal 2008).
Blaschka models still fulfil their original purpose in
another way in the display collections of the NMINH.
The NMINH galleries are maintained in their original
‘cabinet’ style display, and the glass models are inserted
as appropriate in the taxonomic arrangement of the
exhibit. The species represented by Blaschka models
serve to ‘complete’ the biodiversity on display, when
those animals would be too distorted or simply too small
to be visually appealing as preserved specimens, and to
improve the visual presentation of animals that may be
hard to interpret (Figure 3).
Historical context
The NMINH, which is housed in a building constructed
and opened to the public in 1857, is an early product of
the nineteenth century ‘Museum Movement’ (SheetsPyenson 1988). It is one of a very few museums in the
world which preserves the original style of the public
displays.
In the eighteenth century, fashionable collections of
curiosities were maintained by individuals for private
pleasure. In the scientific community, this paralleled a
new ambition of classifying and naming all animal and
plant species, exemplified by the enduring work of
Carolus Linnaeus (Farber 2000). The work of Linnaeus
and his contemporaries focussed on describing a system
to help make sense of the extensive worldwide
biodiversity (Stevens 2002). In the nineteenth century,
systematics was boosted by new understanding of
60
45
130
30
530
[unknown]
Dates purchased
1885
ca. 1880, 1882
1886, 1889
1882, 1885
1878, 1882, 1886, 1888
1881
evolutionary process through the work of Charles
Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.
Taxonomy and systematics is still, in the twenty-first
century, completely dependent on reference collections
of biological specimens, so it is natural that the early
popularity of this type of science is wedded to the creation
of museums. In the nineteenth century, the growing
scientific trend of systematics, coupled with an increasing
popular fascination with the natural world (among a
newly affluent middle class), paved the way for founding
public natural history museums. Taxonomists were
responsible for the genesis of this ‘Museum Movement,’
as museums were founded all over the world in the late
1800s (Sheets-Pyenson 1988).
Simultaneously, the British ‘Aquarium Craze’ of the
late 1850s was popularised by scientists such as Philip
Henry Gosse (Gosse 1856; Barber 1980). This meant an
increasing number of non-scientists became interested in
the biology and habitats of seashore animals, particularly
the hardy anemones, as they attempted to maintain them
in home aquaria. Gosse (1860) illustrations of British
anemones were used as design templates for Leopold
Blaschka’s earliest model animals (Figure 4). Natural
history objects, including Blaschka models, were popular
home decorations, continuing the trend for private
‘cabinets of curiosities’.
Into the 1800s, collections of biological specimens
returned to Europe from an increasing number and variety
of exploring expeditions to other continents to tantalise
and astonish. These exploring expeditions were increasingly organised by public bodies with a deliberate intent to
collect specimen objects and preserve them in museums at
home. The philosophy of systematics and classification
dictated that public displays should attempt to show ‘one
of everything’. Museum specimens (and models) offer a
close look at animals that are inaccessible in the wild.
Examples of exotic marine invertebrates (from home and
abroad), popularised through aquaria, may have been
particular favourites. This is where the Blaschkas found
their niche.
Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 17:51 25 March 2008
4
J.D. Sigwart
Figure 3. Left, Octopus (preserved in alcohol) Octopus macropus, NMINH 1882.603.3 from Naples, Italy. Right, Blaschka glass
model of the Octopus Octopus macropus [Nr. 572] NMINH 1886.919.1, here pictured ‘upside down’ for comparison with the
preserved specimen. Images courtesy of National Museum of Ireland.
Blaschkas as businessmen
Much that is known about the Blaschka family business
comes not from their surviving works, but from their
meticulous and detailed business records as well as
catalogues supplied through their sales agents in
English and German. The catalogue numbers assigned
in the sales catalogues are an invaluable tool for tracing
acquisition (and changes in nomenclature) for models in
a certain collection. (Catalogue numbers are noted for
NMINH specimens in square brackets, along with the
species name if it was different at the time of sale.)
The Rakow Research Library of The Corning Museum
of Glass (Corning, NY, USA) holds the accounts books,
notebooks containing drafts of business letters, and
scientific and design notes made by Blaschkas. Other
archive materials specific to the ‘glass flowers’ are held
by Harvard University. The early accounts records,
from the 1860s onward show which specific pieces were
purchased by a buyer, even when (such as with the Irish
universities’ collections) the institution’s own purchase
records do not survive (see e.g. Dyer 2008).
Of particular interest are the business letters; the drafts
often show extensive corrections and revisions before a
final, tactfully worded letter was sent to colleagues,
while the draft was maintained in the Blaschkas’
personal archive. The scientific notes and drawings are
often artistic pieces in their own right, and have recently
been brought together in a temporary exhibit at the
Corning Museum of Glass (Rossi-Wilcox and Whitehouse 2007).
The Blaschka family glass business spanned more
than 300 years and approximately nine generations, with
connections in Venice, Bohemia (in an area now in the
Czech Republic) and Germany. Leopold and Rudolf
continued to make a variety of decorative and functional
glass products, including glass eyes (for visually
Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 17:51 25 March 2008
Historical Biology
5
Figure 4. Left, P.H. Gosse, Actinologia Brittanica, plate 5. The small anemone at bottom right is Anthea cereus Gosse. Right,
Blaschka glass model of ‘Anthea cereus’ based on Gosse’s illustration, collection of Oxford University, acquired 1867. Photograph by
M. Nowak-Kemp, courtesy of Oxford University Museum of National History.
impaired people and for taxidermists’ animals) and
laboratory glassware into the 1870s (Blaschka 1882).
The famous biological models became their sole output
only in 1886, when they accepted an exclusive contract
with Harvard University to construct the Ware collection
of botanical models.
Leopold’s first models of anemones were displayed
in 1863 in the Dresden Natural History Museum.
(The model shown in Figure 4 is one of the oldest
surviving examples of a Blaschka anemone.) This
exhibition prompted orders from other museums and
universities for similar models. The next year, in 1864,
Leopold began experimentally producing other marine
invertebrates, particularly jellyfish (R. Blaschka 1896).
As the business became established, the majority of
Blaschka models were sold though several agents, which
advertised natural history products to universities and
museums. The two most important agents to the
Blaschka business appear to have been Henry Augustus
Ward in North American (see Dyer 2008) and Robert
Damon in Great Britain and Ireland. From ca. 1870 until
1885, the Blaschkas also periodically printed their own
catalogues with lists and prices of available models,
which they distributed by mail to universities and
museums worldwide.
Blaschkas as scientists
Throughout their two-generation career, the Blaschkas
had no known apprentices, but the business in models of
sea creatures expanded and improved rapidly with the
addition of Leopold’s son Rudolf (Rossi-Wilcox and
Whitehouse 2007). Rudolf joined his father in the
business in 1876, when he was 19 (although clearly he
had extensive experience with glass at a younger age).
In 1877, the Blaschkas purchased preserved specimens of
marine invertebrates from the Zoological Station in
Naples, which augmented the scientific publications
Leopold had used as the basis for previous pieces. Within
the next few years, they acquired a saltwater aquarium to
keep living models for their designs (Rossi-Wilcox and
Whitehouse 2007). This improvement moved the
Blaschkas’ methods from a mode of being essentially
copyists of existing scientific illustrations, to creating
and designing models from original observations.
The nineteenth century era of the ‘gentleman
naturalist’ was well suited to craftsmen such as the
Blaschkas, who had the luxury of pursuing their personal
interest in natural history through their work. Rudolf made
several field expeditions associated with the model
business, for marine creatures in 1879 (R. Blaschka
1896) and later for botanical specimens, both before and
Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 17:51 25 March 2008
6
J.D. Sigwart
after his father’s death (Rossi-Wilcox and Whitehouse
2007). Rudolf gave two lectures at meetings of the Dresden
Natural History Society in 1880. His lifelong membership
in the Society is evidence of his direct involvement in the
local scientific community (Zaunick 1939).
Personal contact with biologists throughout the
Blaschkas’ career continually added new designs to
their repertoire. Early on, Ludwig Reichenbach, of the
Dresden museum, ordered models of terrestrial snails
based on specimens he had collected (R. Blaschka 1896).
Later, in 1886, Franz Eilhard Schulze of Berlin ordered
models based on his illustrations of the anatomy of
sponges collected by the Challenger expeditions
(Hackethal 2008). These sponge models were the last
animals to be added to the Blaschka range, and were
purchased only by Berlin and the NMINH. Another
important contact, Ernst Haeckel of Jena University,
Germany, inspired a number of Blaschka models through
correspondence, and loans of books including his own
publications. Haeckel probably inspired the models of
embryological series the Blaschkas produced, as
embryology was central to Haeckel’s influential work
on evolution.
Accuracy was important to the Blaschkas, personally
and professionally. The 1878 edition of their catalogue
includes a note that all animal models are ‘made partly
after my own observations and examinations, and partly
by the help of the best modern Zoological Works’
(Blaschka 1878).
The Blaschkas’ own interest in anatomy and
biodiversity of marine invertebrates translated to
products that made excellent teaching tools for those
subjects. Word of mouth between corresponding
scientists was clearly an important element in gaining
new clients for Blaschka models (Miller and Lowe 2008;
Swinney 2008). Without the Blaschkas’ personal
scientific aptitude, their business would not have
succeeded and grown over several decades.
Blaschkas as artists
As most surviving Blaschka pieces are held in natural
history museums, Blaschka works seem to sit uncomfortably in the world of ‘Art.’ Certainly the first models
made by Leopold Blaschka were intended as objects of
beauty (Rossi-Wilcox and Whitehouse 2007). However,
later motivations focussed on supplying the available
market for natural history education, through museums
and universities (Dyer 2008). Clearly the Blaschkas used
their talents with glass and personal interests in natural
history to exploit a niche market for profit (an ambition of
many artists).
One of the Blaschkas’ (ca. 1870) oldest sales
catalogues advertises sea model anemones as ‘decoration
for elegant rooms as well as for instruction at teaching
institutions and museums’, with the decorative option
noted before any scientific function. The scientific
accuracy of the models and the scientific knowledge of
the Blaschkas themselves is no different to other artists of
that period, although the medium is unusual (Van Leeuwen
2008). Haeckel was an influential scientific figure of the
time, but his explicitly artistic compilation Kunstformen
der Natur (Haeckel 1899) included images that were used
for Blaschka designs. Interestingly, the overall accuracy
and detail seems to have improved over the course of the
Blaschkas’ joint career, although some level of ‘artistic
freedom’ always remained (Rossi-Wilcox 2008).
Although the primary medium for the Blaschka
animal sculptures was glass, they also included extensive
elements that would qualify as ‘mixed media’. Early
models include papier mâché, paper inserts, and later
models include wire armature and even glass-coated or
bare wire tentacles. Some of the most fascinating pieces
include real mollusc shells with fused glass models of the
species.
The subjects of their works were of great popular
interest in the late nineteenth century, but perhaps one of
the most surprising things to modern, twenty-first century
observers is that invertebrates are not only beautiful
forms but also fascinating animals.
Models of molluscs
The Phylum Mollusca is the particular study interest of
the author, and molluscs are a significant aspect of the
Blaschkas’ catalogues. The earliest catalogues included
more than 60 species of molluscs (almost 25% of the
models available; Blaschka 1870) and the proportional
representation of molluscs remained steady at 25%,
growing to 176 of 687 in 1888 (Ward 1888). The most
popular groups were the gastropods (snails, slugs, sea
slugs and allies) and cephalopds (octopus, squid, and kin).
Very few bivalves were made, and these were only added
to the range relatively late (nine in the 1888 catalogue, but
none in the 1878 catalogue). The NMINH collection
includes almost 200 molluscs, of which the vast majority
(162) are gastropods, with comparatively much smaller
numbers of cephalopods (26) and bivalves (10).
Interestingly, there are several groups of mollucs
that were entirely overlooked by the Blaschkas: the
polyplacophorans, or chitons, were traditionally preserved
by ‘mummifying’ the entire body (Gray 1847). However,
they also overlooked the scaphopods, or tusk shells.
The absence of the shell-less verimform aplacophoran
molluscs Neomeniomorpha (Solenogastres) and
Chaetodermomorpha (Caudofoveata) is very curious,
since these seem to fit well into the Blaschkas oeuvre.
Conchology was a thriving aspect of popular natural
history in the nineteenth century. Shell collections
routinely made up a substantial portion of any private
Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 17:51 25 March 2008
Historical Biology
cabinet of curiosities. Blaschka models filled a niche for
inserting shell-less molluscs (sea slugs and cephalopods)
into taxonomically arranged collections. Agents such as
Ward and Damon also offered extensive shell collections
that could be purchased by individual species; the
NMINH also acquired shells from Damon as well as
Blaschka models to ‘complete’ the display collection.
Molluscs also include the only non-marine invertebrates to have been modelled by the Blaschkas, in the
form of several species of terrestrial and freshwater
snails and terrestrial slugs. A contemporary of Gosse,
Emil Adolf Roßmäßler promoted freshwater aquaria in
Germany as an inland alternative to the British ‘aquarium
craze’ (Brunner 2003). His illustrations of freshwater
snails inspired the Blaschkas’ designs. His followers may
have found glass snails easier to care for. Some
museums, such as the NMINH, which could afford
extensive collections of Blaschka models, seem to have
purchased whatever was made available.
Through the various editions of the Blaschkas’ sales
catalogues there is a rapid and continuous increase in the
number of nudibranch gastropod (sea slug) models
available, beginning with 12 species (Blaschka ca. 1870)
and increasing to a total of 154 (Ward 1878). The increase
was clearly consumer-driven, ‘according to repeated wish’
(Ward 1878). The nudibranch species span a larger number
of families than were recognised in the Blaschkas’ day; the
families ‘Doridae’ and ‘Aeolididae’ as they were known in
the 19th century are now known to be polyphyletic.
Nudibranchs suffer visually dramatic degradation in form
and colour when the animal is preserved; the eye-catching
colours and dramatic setae are stylistically presented in the
Blaschka models. These make more informative teaching
tools for anyone unfamiliar with the living animal, who
would be totally uninspired by the preserved specimen.
Cephalopods, popular animals because of their
intelligence and complex behaviour, were also available
in a wide variety of species. The cephalopods were the
second most represented group of molluscs, but the
number of different species did not change dramatically
from 1878 (48 species; Ward 1878) to 1888 (50 species;
Ward 1888). These are generally quite large models
compared to most Blaschka animals (anemones, nudibranchs, etc). Interestingly, the anatomical detail in most
cephalopod models includes three-dimensional representation of ventral features (such as suckers and beak) that
are not visible when displayed (Figure 5).
The early Blaschka models focus on North Atlantic
species of anemones and other invertebrates; ‘exotic’
species from tropical areas were gradually added to the
range. In the cases of species from outside the
Mediterranean and North Atlantic, the Blaschkas were
dependent on scientific illustrations. In the molluscan realm,
they took designs from major contemporary malacologists
and original descriptions of species from exploring
7
expeditions. These are included (usually in abbreviated
form) as the authority in the species epithet listed in the sales
catalogue: Pease, Alder and Hancock, Angas, Bergh,
Verany, Pease, Draparnaud, and Ferrussac and O.F Müller.
The models of molluscs include all of the various
techniques and media used by the Blaschkas to execute
their models. The first Blaschka mollusc was actually
made of papier mâché, as a base for the anemone
Adamsia palliata [Nr. 33] based on Gosse’s illustration
(Gosse 1860; e.g. NMINH 1886.229.1).
One aspect highlighted in the Crystal Creatures
exhibit was the use of manufactured glass shells or real
shells fused to a glass animal. In two species, a glass shell
was made and painted to match the real shell: the Keyhole
Limpet Diodora iltalica [Nr. 692 Fissurella costaria]
(NMINH 1886.863.1) and the Green Abalone Haliotis
tuberculata [Nr. 694] (NMINH 1886.865.1). The sea snail
Turbo was also made with a glass shell, enlarged from life.
The likeness and texture are so accurate that it may not be
possible to determine whether the shell is made of glass
without touching it (Figure 6). These two gastropods have
open shells and it may be due to technical aspect of
adhering the body to a shell; however, these are also both
North Atlantic species so they may be the first gastropods
made by the Blaschkas, and before they experimented
with mixed media and real shells. Further gastropods
(primarily from the North Atlantic) all used a real shell of
the correct species adhered to a glass body.
A number of species were made available as models
of dissection, showing the internal anatomy. The majority
of these were molluscan taxa (13 different species),
including bivalves, shelled gastropods, opisthobranchs,
and the cephalopod Sepia (the cuttlefish). The only
non-mollusc dissection models were a polychaete, the
medicinal leech, and a sea cucumber (all three are present
in the NMINH collections; Figure 7). The shelled
molluscs show a life-size shell with glass body, presented
alongside an enlarged model of the dissection. These
would have made excellent teaching aids, but were
probably not ever intended for the ‘elegant room’.
Molluscs represent a substantial fraction of living
diversity of invertebrate species, as well as a tremendous
variety of body plans. It is not surprising that they feature
largely in the Blaschka repertoire. However, the seemingly
repetitive experimentation with many superficially similar
species of nudibranch and cephalopods may reflect the
artists’ preferences as much as contemporary client demand.
Nomenclature
The Blaschkas demonstrated their own scientific
proficiency by consistently and correctly employing the
Latin species names for the animals they modelled.
Taxon names and classification are not only important to
systematists, but also to modern workers concerned with
Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 17:51 25 March 2008
8
J.D. Sigwart
Figure 5. Blaschka glass model of the Comb-finned Squid, Chtenopteryx siculus [Nr. 593 Sepioteuthis sicula] NMINH 1886.925.1,
photographed from above, in the normal display position; below, the same model from the anterior end, showing details of suckers,
mouth, and siphon not normally visible. Images courtesy of National Museum of Ireland.
species conservation and biodiversity (Dyke and Sigwart
2005). In this context, species names also become
important to historians interested in the Blaschka oeuvre.
One area of persistent confusion for non-scientists is
the mutability of taxonomy. The majority of species
modelled by the Blaschkas are no longer known by the
names given in the nineteenth century. These dynamics
reflect the constant improvement in our knowledge of
evolutionary relationships, which is still very much an
ongoing science, but cause great frustration for historians
and others. In essence, Blaschka models have two names.
The name of the artistic piece can be considered to be the
name assigned when it was manufactured; the second
name is the modern, and changeable, name of the
biological species it represents.
In the NMINH, where the exhibits are preserved in
roughly their nineteenth century arrangement, the names
associated with Blaschka models served to fit in with and
complete taxonomically arranged exhibits. In preparing a
complete catalogue of the NMINH Blaschka holdings,
the author (JDS) endeavoured to update the species
epithet associated with each model. In several cases this
illuminated interesting points about the history of
nineteenth century zoology. Several species of anemones
are now recognised to by synonyms, the species names
used by the Blaschkas were simply different colour forms
or local varieties. The haloclavid anemone Peachia
cylindrica was sold by the Blaschkas under the names
Peachia triphylla [Nr. 74] and Peachia undata [Nr. 75],
both of which are considered redundant to P. cylindrica.
In most other cases, species have been recognised as
junior synonyms or have simply been reassigned to other
genera and families in the last 130 years.
Interestingly, investigation of the NMINH collection
revealed that several intermediate attempts had been
made in the past century to update the nomenclature.
This is the more human side of science (charming or
frustrating), as these efforts were not consistent between
taxonomic groups and were not continuously maintained
with advances in taxonomy over time. In several cases,
Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 17:51 25 March 2008
Historical Biology
9
Conclusions
Figure 6. Blaschka glass model of the Green Abalone, with
glass shell, Haliotis tuberculata [Nr. 694] NMINH 1886.865.1.
Image courtesy of the National Museum of Ireland.
past re-labelling has meant that some data about the
original acquisition (date, species name) were lost.
Modern museum practices guard against any future loss
of data.
During the Dublin Blaschka Congress there was lively
debate about the ‘best’ techniques for displaying Blaschka
objects. Approaches are more or less divided on lines of
artistic (objects in isolation with dramatic lighting) versus
historical (in the style of a scientific cabinet of curiosities).
The exhibit Crystal Creatures was firmly in the latter
group, and possibly that style is unavoidable when display
is approached with a scientific bias.
Clearly, the proper place for Blaschka models is on
public display. This was the intention of their design, and
their manufacture and sale. The impetus for display has
prompted a rise to the challenges of conserving these
objects. An increasing number of conservators have
addressed the variety of media, animal glues and
historical neglect typical of most Blaschka objects.
Their success will lead to more confidence in bringing
Blaschka objects out of storage.
The papers in this volume reflect a sampling of the
research presented at the Dublin Blaschka Congress.
Rossi-Wilcox discusses scientific detail in the botanical
models; Hackenthal presents the Blaschkas in a context
of other German scientific models; Dyer discusses the
North American aspect and the application of models to
teaching; Swinney, and Miller and Lowe investigate
the history of particular collections as case studies in
Blaschka history; Van Leeuwen adds the art historical
Figure 7. Blaschka glass model of a Sea Cucumber dissection (top), Holothuria tubulosa [Nr. 274] showing internal anatomy, with
anatomical organs numbered for identification NMINH 1886.939.1; (right) Sea Cucumber Psolus phantapus [Nr. 277] NMINH
1878.185.1. Images courtesy of National Museum of Ireland.
Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 17:51 25 March 2008
10
J.D. Sigwart
perspective. Other talks at the Congress expanded these
themes, discussing the history of Leopold and Rudolf
Blaschka, collections in other museums, zoological
assessment and other glass model makers.
What is not debated is that these objects (as sculptures,
or as models) have something to show modern audiences.
Objects possess an inherent ability to teach. In this case,
the objects widen their audience to encompass an artistic
community, which is now in part more segregated from
science than it was in the nineteenth century. Any
biologist should be a delighted champion of these objects,
which bring a wider popular audience to the topic of
organisms (invertebrates and plants) and their anatomy.
Glass artists must feel the same way about the Blaschkas’
influence on biologists.
Acknowledgements
The Dublin Blaschka Congress was generously supported by G. and A. Loudon and the Corning Museum of
Glass. I am indebted to C. McGuinness (UCD/NMINH)
for help with organising the Congress and the Crystal
Creatures exhibit; P. Viscardi (UCD/NMNH), G. Dyke
(UCD), L. Barnes (NMI) and many others volunteered
their time and efforts. N. Monaghan (NMINH) aided and
supported every stage of this work. W. Arthur (NUI
Galway), M. Linnie (TCD), P. Wyse-Jackson (TCD) and
J. Davenport (UCC) graciously provided access to
collections in their care. H. Reiling, C. Meechan and
many others were generous with their time and
knowledge. Thanks are due to all of these and of course
to everyone who attended the Dublin Blaschka Congress
and made it a success.
References
Barber L. 1980. The Heyday of Natural History, 1820–1870. London
(UK): Cape.
Blaschka L. c. 1870. Marine Aquarien mit Actinien: Blumenpolypen
u.s.w. Zierde für elegante Zimmer wie zur Belehrung für
Unterrichtsanstalten und für Museen künstlich und höchst
naturgetreu dargestellt. Dresden (Germany): L. Blaschka.
Blaschka L. 1878. Ward HA. Catalogue of glass models of invertebrate
animals. Rochester (NY): Ward’s Natural Science Establishment.
Blaschka L. 1882. Correspondenz Buch III. Unpublished manuscript.
Rakow Research Library, Corning Museum of Glass, USA.
Blaschka R. 1896. Letter to GL Goodale, 6 January. Botanical Museum.
Harvard University. Cambridge, MA. Farber, P. 2000. Finding
Order in Nature. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, US.
Brunner B. 2003. Wie das Meer nach Hause kam: die Erfindung des
Aquariums. Berlin (Germany): Transit.
Dyer R. 2008. Learning through glass: The Blaschka marine models in
North American post-secondary education. Hist Biol 20(1):29–37.
Gosse PH. 1856. A handbook to the marine aquarium: containing
practical instructions for constructing, stocking, and maintaining a
tank, and for collecting plants and animals. 2nd ed., rev. London
(UK): Van Voorst.
Gosse PH. 1860. Actinologia Britannica: a history of the British sea
anemones and corals. London (UK): Van Voorst.
Gray JE. 1847. On the genera of the family Chitonidae. Proc Zool Soc
Lond 15:63–70.
Hackethal S. 2008. The Blaschka models of the Humboldt University of
Berlin and their historical context. Hist Biol 20(1):19– 28.
Haeckel E. 1899. Kunstformen der Natur. Leipzig & Wien (Germany):
Verlag des Bibliographischen Instituts.
Miller CG, Lowe M. 2008. The Natural History Museum Blaschka
collections. Hist Biol 20(1):51–62.
National Musuem of Ireland. 1882. Unpublished accession register,
NMI Natural History Division.
National Musuem of Ireland. 1886. Unpublished accession register,
NMI Natural History Division.
Petro J, Hudson A. 2002. Leopold & Rudolf Blaschka. London (UK):
Design Museum.
Rossi-Wilcox SM. 2008. From reference specimen to verisimilitude:
The Blaschkas’ penchant for botanical accuracy. Hist Biol 20(1):
11 –18.
Rossi-Wilcox SM, Whitehouse D. 2007. Drawing upon Nature: Studies
for the Blaschkas’ glass models. Corning (USA): The Corning
Museum of Glass.
Stevens PF. 2002. Why do we name organisms? Some reminders from
the past. Taxon 51:11–26.
Swinney GN. 2008. Enchanted invertebrates: Blaschka models and
other simulacra in National Museums Scotland. Hist Biol 20(1):
39 –50.
Van Leeuwen TAP. 2008. Mezzanine art, or the stor(e)y between
science and art. Hist Biol 20(1):63– 75.
Ward HA. 1878. Catalogue of glass models of invertebrate animals.
Rochester (NY): Ward’s Natural Science Establishment.
Zaunick R. 1939. Veränderungen im Mitgliederbestände 1937/1938:
Verstorbene Mitglieder. Sitz Abh naturw Ges Isis Dresd
1938/1939:51–53.