Feedback request: Ulmus glabra subsp. montana (41864)

[peterwiggins]

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 #368356

Taxon:	Ulmaceae: Ulmus glabra subsp. montana Hyl.
Other name:	Urticaceae: Ulmus montana Stokes
Filed in taxon folder:	Ulmaceae: Ulmus glabra subsp. montana Hyl.
Collected by:	Joseph Woods
Collection date:	20/6/1846
Locality:	Great Britain, VC14 East Sussex, Landport, TQ41, Nearer tree
ex herb:	Mr Frederick Townsend Mr Allan Octavian Hume
Institution:	South London Botanical Institute (SLBI)
Image:

Inferred details are marked.

Documented by peterwiggins on 26^th January 2014.

Edit history

date	user	change
26/01/2014	peterwiggins	Added notes
26/01/2014	peterwiggins	Deleted locality:
26/01/2014	peterwiggins	Added locality: GB VC14 Lewes
26/01/2014	peterwiggins	Deleted collector: Mr Allan Octavian Hume
26/01/2014	peterwiggins	Added collector: Joseph Woods
26/01/2014	peterwiggins	Added collection date: 20/6/1846
31/01/2014	xmhcman	Deleted note: Landport
31/01/2014	xmhcman	Deleted locality: GB VC14 Lewes
31/01/2014	xmhcman	Added locality: GB VC14 Landport, Nearer tree

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

peterwiggins wrote

I suspect place and date may not have been photographed on the back of the sheet

[Tom Humphrey]

The 'label on the back' is the one offset below the main label (copy/pasted into the image).

[peterwiggins]

I wondered if some of the label on the back had been missed?
He refers to date and place being on the back, but they are not in the label that has been photographed.

[Roger Horton]

This is one of those cryptic Joseph Woods labels, the date 46620 corresponds to 20th June 1846. The location appears to be 'Landport nearer tree', as opposed to the 'farther tree' of sheet 367808, collected the same day. Landport is now part of Lewes, but in Woods' time would have been a separate village ~1km NW, which presumably had two Elm trees!

[peterwiggins]

Thanks!

[Roger Horton]

I should have said Wych Elm! Joseph Woods has another example on sheet 367665 ex herb. Townsend and Hume where the writer of the label (not Woods) has put 'Landport Hants'. There is such a place in Portsea, Portsmouth, and Woods did collect from Portsea, but I wonder if this example is a misinterpretation of what Woods reported.