Feedback request: Epipactis helleborine (27285)

[iombar]

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 #280316

Taxon:	Orchidaceae: Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz ("Broad-leaved Helleborine") named by Victor Samuel Summerhayes 10/1956
Filed in taxon folder:	Orchidaceae: Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz ("Broad-leaved Helleborine")
Collected by:	Rev. Augustin Ley
Collection date:	22/8/1872
Locality:	Great Britain, VC34 West Gloucestershire, Long Wood, Stroud, SO7209, The Long Wood, near Stroud
ex herb:	Rev. Augustin Ley
Institution:	University of Birmingham (BIRM)
Image:

Documented by iombar on 14^th October 2009.

Edit history

date	user	change
15/10/2009	tom humphrey	Deleted locality: GB VC33,VC34 Stroud, The Long Wood, near Stroud
15/10/2009	tom humphrey	Added locality: GB VC34 Long Wood, Stroud, The Long Wood, near Stroud SO7209 (place)
15/10/2009	tom humphrey	Added collector: Rev. Augustin Ley
15/10/2009	tom humphrey	Deleted collection date: 1872 August 22
15/10/2009	tom humphrey	Added collection date: 22/8/1872
20/11/2010	chrisu	Deleted determination (orig): Epipactis helleborine
20/11/2010	chrisu	Added determination (orig): Epipactis helleborine on 10/1956
20/11/2010	chrisu	Deleted provenance: exherb (University Of Birmingham)
20/11/2010	chrisu	Added determiner: Mr Victor Samuel Summerhayes

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

iombar wrote

Collector Augustin Ley??

[Tom Humphrey]

Hi iombar, welcome to herb@home.

The handwriting looks like Ley's, so I think you are correct.

I noticed that you had written out the date in full (i.e. '1872 August 22'). Unfortunately the system is only able to understand dates written in a fairly restricted format:

22/8/1872 (or 8/1872 had the day not been specified).

The reason for this inflexibility is that dates were written on labels in such diverse ways that it's better to let a human reformat the date than try to allow the computer to second-guess what might have been intended.

regards,

Tom