Yes, if marked accurately to where and when collected (and they were collected by the observer), museum specimens are wild. If not, they are captive.
Thank you! That might make sense. But I need to think about some of the features of such a solution before I use it. And anyway, this is not related directly to the topic of the discussion.
Perhaps some of the uncertainty in this question is really caused by what time to refer to the state of the organism. But it seems to me that all properties of the organism should be considered in the context of observation. If the observation refers to an occurrence of an organism in the wild, then the organism (in the observation) should be considered wild. In the moment of the observation, it was wild. Regardless of subsequent actions with it. Even if some of its properties are found and described later in the museum/laboratory. And even if it was done by someone other than the observer (collector). Likewise, if the observation was made in the laboratory (and attributed accordingly), the organism (in the observation) should be considered captive. Even if it was taken from the wild and later returned to its natural habitat. In the moment of the observation, it was captive.