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.
Documented by johnhawksford on 19th May 2008.
Checked by keith barnett
Edit history
date | user | change |
---|
19/05/2008 | johnhawksford | Added determination (orig): Circaea lutetiana x alpina = C. x intermedia det. by Peter H Raven on 1961 |
19/05/2008 | johnhawksford | Deleted determination (orig): Circaea lutetiana x alpina = C. x intermedia det. by Peter H Raven on 1961 |
19/05/2008 | johnhawksford | Deleted determination (orig): Circaea lutetiana x alpina = C. x intermedia det. by Mr E C Wallace on 1/9/1939 |
19/05/2008 | johnhawksford | Replaced note: Two plants. |
01/02/2010 | keith barnett | Added collector: Rev. Augustin Ley |
01/02/2010 | mossysal | Added determination (orig): Circaea alpina |
01/02/2010 | mossysal | Deleted note: Two plants. Also identified by Mr E.C Wallace on 1/9/1939. |
01/02/2010 | mossysal | Added determiner: John Gilbert Baker |
01/02/2010 | mossysal | Added determiner: Mr Edward Charles Wallace |
01/02/2010 | mossysal | Deleted attribute flowerField: flowering |
01/02/2010 | mossysal | Added attribute flowerField: fruiting |
01/02/2010 | mossysal | Added determiner's note: All |
03/02/2010 | keith barnett | Deleted determiner's note: "good alpina" |
03/02/2010 | keith barnett | Added determiner's note: looks like glevense (common in this area) but needs checking from specimen |
04/02/2010 | keith barnett | Deleted determiner's note: "good alpina" |
04/02/2010 | keith barnett | Added determiner's note: as C. leptopterum |
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
- keith barnett wrote
- on review, I suppose it really is 1.9.39 and not 1.7.1937 or 39?? Not familiar with the handwriting.