42, Arnoldia 78/5-6 « October 2021 
specimens are being considered in connection 
with exhibits, in the coming Museum of His- 
tory and Technology, on early lumbering in the 
Northeast, the Lake States, the Central Hard- 
wood Region, the Southern Pinery, the Pacific 
Northwest, and the California Redwood Region. 
A few of the other large specimens may possi- 
bly be halved lengthwise, one half being exhibited 
with tangentially and radially cut boards from 
the other half, and the remainder cut into study 
samples for distribution to educational institu- 
tions, colleges, universities, and museums. 
The remainder of the collection would even- 
tually be cut into study samples for distribution 
as stated above. We would retain at least two 
specimens of each species that is cut.!0! 
Parr expressed reticence toward the Smithso- 
nian’s plans to destroy the majority of the logs, 
but he was steadfast in his determination to 
relocate the huge collection.!°? The museum’s 
Board of Trustees approved the transfer at its 
April 1958 meeting.!° 
Despite this progress, the arrangements for 
the collection’s transfer remained suspended 
for another two years. Parr retired, and James 
A. Oliver became the museum’s new director 
in 1959. During this same time frame, both 
the directorship of the Smithsonian’s Museum 
of Natural History and the curatorship of its 
Department of Botany (which included its wood 
collection) also changed. 
In 1960, William L. Stern became the Smith- 
sonian’s new curator of the Division of Woods. 
Stern, formerly the curator of the Samuel J. 
Record wood collection at Yale University, had 
earlier in that role declined the museum’s offer 
of the Jesup Collection. He explained to McCor- 
mick, “We refused on the grounds that the space 
needed for storage would be beyond our means, 
that many of the pieces were ponderous and not 
easily handled.” At the Smithsonian, Stern was 
again faced with the prospect of acquiring the 
Jesup Collection. In January 1960, he noted to 
McCormick, “If I had been Curator of the Divi- 
sion of Woods in the National Museum at the 
time the Jesup Collection was offered, I do not 
know how I would have reacted to the offer.... 
I just hope that there will be no restrictions 
on cutting the specimens and that there are 
no qualifications regarding the handling of the 
material once it is in the National Museum.” 1% 
Stern had expressed his opinion to the Smithso- 
nian’s new director of the Museum of Natural 
History, Albert C. Smith, that despite “the his- 
torical importance and unique nature” of the 
Jesup Collection, “it would not greatly increase 
the usefulness of our present collections for 
anatomical study.” !° 
In his correspondence with Oliver in June 
1960, Smith explained, “One of the problems 
that we both inherited, in connection with our 
new positions, concerns the Jesup Collection 
of Woods of the United States.... I am now in 
the embarrassing position of having to ask you 
to allow the Smithsonian Institution to reverse 
itself, as to acceptance of the Jesup Collec- 
tion.” 19° He indicated that although one or two 
of the monumental cross-sections might still 
be useful in their exhibits, the costs of reloca- 
tion and the ever-present problem of storage 
were obstacles to their previously agreed-upon 
plans. Oliver, of course, was disappointed but 
acknowledged the Smithsonian’s position.!9” 
For the sake of the logs, it was certainly a fortu- 
itous development: the very scope and volume 
of the collection that had inspired museum 
visitors had made it difficult to accommodate 
elsewhere, and just as onerous to cut up into 
tiny hand samples. These were only the first 
obstacles the museum encountered in its efforts 
to dispose of the Jesup Collection, but the rea- 
sons would not change going forward. 
McCormick next approached William C. 
Steere, director of the New York Botanical Gar- 
den. After initially suggesting that the garden 
could accept the Jesup Collection, however, the 
offer was declined later in 1961.!°8 Following 
McCormick’s departure from the museum in 
August of that year, at which time the Depart- 
ment of Vegetation Studies disappeared for- 
ever, Oliver took up the cause himself. To an 
inquiry from Stanley A. Cain, of the University 
of Michigan School of Natural Resources, he 
wrote: “This collection is really a very impor- 
tant one and it should be transferred to a single 
institution intact. The bulk of the collection 
is one of the big problems that hinders any- 
one from accepting it. However, there are no 
restrictions on it and the wood samples could 
easily be cut up for other institutions.”!!? This 
