Feedback request: Primula vulgaris (K001017021)

[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 #376030

Taxon:	Primulaceae: Primula vulgaris Huds. ("Primrose")
Filed in taxon folder:	Primulaceae: Primula vulgaris Huds. ("Primrose")
Collected by:	M Parker
Collection date:	11/4/1948
Locality:	Great Britain, VC17 Surrey, Brockham, TQ14, Primrose Wood
Institution:	Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (K)
Accession number:	K001017021
Image: © Kew
fruits/flowers:	mature flowers

Inferred details are marked.

Documented by peterwiggins on 7^th July 2014.

Edit history

date	user	change
08/07/2014	peterwiggins	Added collector: M Parker

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

Any ideas on the collector?

[Roger Horton]

This appears to be 'M Parker' who has two other 1948 sheets from near Dorking (372888, 373264). Alas, this collector has been linked to Mrs Mary Parker, aka Miss Mary Cubitt (1821-1890), a daughter of the family living on the Denbies estate above Dorking, who collected in the mid 1800s (eg 344359; see THIS POST in the 'botanist' section). Perhaps you could try entering 'M Parker' as collector but not linking to what appears in the drop-down menu.

[peterwiggins]

I must be getting the hang of this thing as that's the conclusion I'd reached.

[Tom Humphrey]

I've added 'M Parker' as a separate entry to the drop-down list, to avoid the erroneous linkage with Mrs Parker/Mary Cubitt.

The Mrs Parker/Cubitt association is correct, but the automatic coercion of 'M Parker' entries into 'Mrs Parker' appears to have been a bug in the way names were recognized by the system (there wasn't an explicit link set between the two entries - the merging was happening unintentionally).

[Roger Horton]

I have edited a few sheets with Parker/Cubitt collectors, so that in 'collectors' we now have (numbers being coll/comm/herb/det; potted history in ""):

10220 Mary Cubitt 43/0/0/0 "of the clear handwriting"
20171 Parker 0/2/0/0 "Suffolk 1840s"
21295 (Mrs) Parker Miss Mary Cubitt 1/0/0/0 "<1929"
22531 Mary Parker Ne Cubitt [sic] 0/0/0/0
22850 M Parker 4/0/0/0 "1948"

Is it possible please for 10220 to be 'Mary Parker née Cubitt' on the pull-down list? This would make things much more clear when documenting. This collector could then have a wiki entry based on Chris's excellent post!

Note also: 22335 (Rev.) Charles Eyre Parker 15/0/0/0 "1841 living Ringshall Suffolk, collecting mostly Devon"

[Roger Horton]

Just found another one:

22636 (Mrs) Mary Parker Née Cubitt 0/0/0/0