Collector's numbers

[Botanyemma]

Hi,

I'm new to the herbaria@home and have databased a few specimens. I've noticed you don't record the collector's number. Most herbaria when databasing specimens record this. The collector's name and number can be used for searching specimens. I don't know if you have looked at the BRAHMS herbarium databasing system from Oxford University? This database sorts herbarium specimens by collector's name & number.

Regards,

Emma

[Tom Humphrey]

Hi,
sorry for the really slow reply...
This has been mentioned before as a deficiency with herb@home. The main reasons that I currently don't record collector number is that it would add quite a lot of complexity to the recording task (in terms of recognising which is the collectors number amid all the other catalogue and accession number gubbins on many sheets). I'm also uncertain how useful collectors numbers are.

How much have you made use of collectors' numbers? Is this something that you think we should be recording? It would be very easy to add an extra field to record them, but I'm loathe to further increase the complexity of the recording form. A few people have been recording numbers using the optional tag field.

I'd be very interested to hear opinions about this.

regards,
Tom

[email protected]

[qgroom]

I have been recording collector number with the optional tag. I think this is a good compromise. The numbers on the sheets from the 19th century are mostly the London catalogue number of that taxon. Proper collector numbers were hardly ever used. In contrast, the 20th century records do often use them.

They can be very useful, if the collector used them sequentially. As they can be used to cross validate specimens to check the dates and sites.

Professional taxonomists use them a lot for referring to collections and linking specimens with notebooks. However, I doubt there are any field note books that go along with these specimens. Certainly, it is a pity that the Botanical Exchange Club did not use them, so that it would be easy to associate their notes with specimens.

[johned]

This is a contentious issue because there needs to be a distinction drawn between sequential collector's numbers such as those which are entered in a field note book, and other referencing systems which are adjuncts to herbarium administration. Merely to capture a number on a sheet and call it a collector's number is, as Tom says, likely to confuse rather than enlighten.

It's certainly worth encouraging people to capture numbers so that in the future a data set can be sorted by collection date, and numbers which line up in sequence can be recognised as 'true' collector's numbers. It would also enable collections with herbarium numbers generated by the collector (such as the herbarium of Fred Holder at National Museums Liverpool) to be distinguished. These form part of the accession number, but as they are written in red ink on the label rather than in the conventional accno. position they are often misinterpreted as field collection numbers.