Part of why Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology succeeded was that the state of California was one of the Boundary Objects involved.
The State of California seems like a pretty abstract thing. But an important fact about boundary objects is that humans readily “thingify” abstract ideas and then treat them as if they are real objects in the world.
So, what did “California” mean to different people involved in the museum?
The **collectors** were motivated by preserving the record of specifically *Californian* wildlife. Which makes no sense. Wildlife doesn’t respect political boundaries, so why should the science? Because the collectors cared about California. It was their home, and they wanted to care for it. Oregonians can take care of Oregon.
Turning California into a boundary object also motivated the **trustees** of the University of *California*. For one thing, public universities are supposed to serve the interests of the states that fund them. Being able to point to a Museum that’s all about *California* biology gained the University points in the **State legislature**.
Moreover, **California elites** at the time were obsessed with showing they were just as good – better, even! – than the snooty east coast elites. Saying that Harvard has old-fashioned museums while Berkeley has a cutting edge museum no doubt also helped make the legislature happy, and happy legislatures produce happy trustees.