View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Tom Humphrey Site Admin
Joined: 04 Jul 2005 Posts: 1298 Location: Wallingford, UK
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:40 pm Post subject: Feedback request: Erophila verna (198) |
|
|
This post was made automatically in response to a request for comment on the documentation form. There is more general info about such requests here.
Documented by CLL on 23rd December 2010. Edit historydate | user | change |
---|
23/12/2010 | tom humphrey | Deleted determination (det): Erophila verna | 23/12/2010 | tom humphrey | Deleted determination (det): Erophila verna var stenocarpa | 23/12/2010 | tom humphrey | Added determination (orig): Erophila verna | 23/12/2010 | tom humphrey | Added determination (orig): Erophila verna var stenocarpa |
Documented by CLL on 23rd December 2010. Edit historydate | user | change |
---|
23/12/2010 | tom humphrey | Deleted determination (det): Erophila verna | 23/12/2010 | tom humphrey | Deleted determination (det): Erophila verna var stenocarpa | 23/12/2010 | tom humphrey | Added determination (orig): Erophila verna | 23/12/2010 | tom humphrey | Added determination (orig): Erophila verna var stenocarpa | 20/06/2013 | oldnick | Deleted locality: GB VC17, label reads Wall near Rev Hill, Sy possibly ??Redhill | 20/06/2013 | oldnick | Added locality: GB VC17 Redhill, wall near |
N.B. reporting of the edit history is currently fairly unclear and misleading. Most edits made to specimens appear as a pair of 'add' and 'delete' entries, which may not be together in the list. There are also often 'minor' edits, which are made automatically (rather than due to user activity), for example to merge synonym names. Log-in to edit this sheet.
User comments about this sheet - tom humphrey wrote
- Any ideas about the locality? Beeby was at Maplehurst, W. Sussex on 17/6/1879, so probably somewhere local to there if he was the collector. (maybe collector Rev. Hill ??)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chris Liffen
Joined: 08 Oct 2007 Posts: 1850
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was in two minds about the taxon, but given my atrophied skills in terms of identification .......
Chris |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Humphrey Site Admin
Joined: 04 Jul 2005 Posts: 1298 Location: Wallingford, UK
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The messages about determination editing are misleading at the moment - I didn't make any changes to the determination - I just wanted to seek suggestions on the strange locality.
I'll try to sort out the spurious determination change messages tomorrow. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chris Liffen
Joined: 08 Oct 2007 Posts: 1850
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will leave such arcane determinations to the leaders on the 'score board'
I took the Sy (?) to denote Surrey ....
Yours
Chris |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dawn nelson
Joined: 24 Oct 2010 Posts: 739
|
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are you sure it was Maplehurst East Sussex as there is a Maplehurst Wood not far from Bexhill East Sussex.
Bex hill is a possible but as Chris says I took Sy to be Surrey,
sorry not too helpful
Dawn |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dawn nelson
Joined: 24 Oct 2010 Posts: 739
|
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Redhill also looks very likely |
|
Back to top |
|
|
oldnick
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 Posts: 5472
|
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I definitely read it as Red Hill Surrey; and Beeby always wrote Redhill that way. All his Sussex specimens that day lie in a quite possible route via Redhill, though it must have been a prodigious journey |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|