Feedback request: Mentha arvensis (36691)

[Cinderella]

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 #362541

Taxon:	Lamiaceae: Mentha arvensis L. ("Corn Mint")
Filed in taxon folder:	Lamiaceae: Mentha arvensis L. ("Corn Mint")
Collected by:	Mr William Hadden Beeby
Collection date:	7/8/1872
Locality:	Great Britain, VC17 Surrey, Oxshott, TQ16, Dry place
ex herb:	Mr William Hadden Beeby
Institution:	South London Botanical Institute (SLBI)
Image:

Inferred details are marked.

Documented by cinderella on 28^th April 2013.

Edit history

date	user	change
30/04/2013	cinderella	Deleted note: Best attempt at location. Crossed out notation on piece of paper at side of specimen reads 'apparently a very hairy state of var:(?) type (B?)
30/04/2013	cinderella	Deleted locality: Uckshott Lumey, Dry place?
30/04/2013	cinderella	Added locality: GB VC17 Oxshott, Dry place
30/04/2013	cinderella	Deleted collection date: 7/8/1972
30/04/2013	cinderella	Added collection date: 7/8/1872

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

cinderella wrote

Not sure if I have completed this sheet to your satisfaction. Please advise. Thank you

[oldnick]

Hello, welcome to the project and all its funny handwriting. You are right, the collector is Beeby; not all sheets name both a herbarium and a collector. The place is 'Ockshott' (ie Oxshott), Surrey. The date is right. I don't know why there is a ? by dry place - I suspect the label was written up neat long after collecting, and Beeby couldn't read his own writing or couldn't remember clearly the site. It's not necessary / essential to enter notes about taxonomic identity - especially when someone has decided they are misleading and has crossed them out. Varietal names can be interesting but more often are obsolete archaic and lacking validity

[chrisu]

The date is 1872 not 1972 - Beeby died in 1910

[Cinderella]

Cinderella
Thanks oldnick and chrisu for feedback. I am still unsure about the date. Beeby died in 1910 but the date on the specimen is 1972.
Special thanks to oldnick for additional comments , very useful to a newbie - nearly one week old! This is the first time I have used a forum too! Wow! Steep learning curve all round

[Chris Liffen]

Collection date would seem to be 1872

for details of Beeby see
http://www.meiosis.org.uk/botanists/beeby-william-hadden-1849-1910/