Assumed Collector

[Pilaira]

hi

I have noticed that when one qualifies a collector by appending (?) to the name, it defaults to 'Botanical Society . . . . etc.'

this is at least consistent, but perhaps assigns a spurious inaccuracy to the record

I'm sure that this problem has been considered; I have found that it seems to happen mostly with Charles Bailey ex herb. specimens - I have assumed that if he hasn't mentioned a collector it was he who made the collection, but as this is an assumption on my part I wanted to qualify it with the (?)

As the data-set gets larger (and the ability to access other herbaria increases) it will be possible to start to create itineraries for individual collectors - you can work out (at least roughly) where they were at specific times

I'd be interested in any comments people may wish to make

[Tom Humphrey]

Currently this is a problem. '?' appears to be being handled very inconsistently.

Internally there is now a way to flag entries as 'inferred' - (this was added recently as it was needed when importing an external dataset from Perth Museum - which was in a different format and included entries marked as inferred). Currently this functionality has not been extended to herbaria@home, but this is something I will get done soon. It could either be done by adding an additional tick box to the form, or by taking '?' to mean inferred (which would probably be more intuitive).

There is an example here of how inferred entries are shown.

Thanks for drawing attention to this problem.