Feedback request: Vaccinium oxycoccos (29008)

[victoria]

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.

Specimen #352853

Taxon:	Ericaceae: Vaccinium oxycoccos L. ("Cranberry")
Filed in taxon folder:	Ericaceae: Vaccinium oxycoccos L. ("Cranberry")
Collected by:	Mr Edward Charles Wallace
Collection date:	28/5/1933
Locality:	Great Britain, VC17 Surrey, Ockley, TQ13, Ockley Common
ex herb:	Mr Job Edward Lousley
Institution:	South London Botanical Institute (SLBI)
Image:
fruits/flowers:	mature flowers
Filing note:	Oxycoccos palustris/quadripetala

Inferred details are marked.

Documented by victoria on 6^th January 2013.

Edit history

date	user	change
07/01/2013	victoria	Deleted note: '1310' is hand written in the bottom left hand corner
07/01/2013	victoria	Deleted locality: GB VC17 Ockley
07/01/2013	victoria	Added locality: GB VC17 Ockley, Ockley Common

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

victoria wrote

Hi, just wish to check that I've completed my first sheet correctly, is '1310' the collector number? does the 'type status' need completing? Thanks!

[Tom Humphrey]

Hi Victoria,

welcome to herb@home.

Your documentation of the sheet looks fine. The only minor changes I'd make would be to add 'Ockley Common' in the locality notes field - (but keeping Ockley as the place name as you have it) - so that there is as much detail possible about where the specimen is from.

There no need to note that it's not a type (it would be very noteworthy if a Type did turn up, but quite unlikely, definitely something that the SLBI would want to know about).

'1310' is the serial number of Oxycoccus quadripetala in the London Catalogue - so not worth recording.

Sheets often have lots of extraneous numbers that are no-longer meaningful. If a sheet has a clearly marked collection number (or collector's number) then that may be worth noting in the collector number field - it might conceivably allow the specimen to be cross-referenced to a notebook record. The other case where it's useful is with A. O. Hume's sheets, as he sometimes (problematically) labelled sheets with 'same site as collection nnnn' without repeating the locality in full - so it would be useful to have his numbering recorded.

best wishes,

Tom