Ex herb vs specimen label

[kkopp]

I feel squeamish asking this since I have done a lot of sheets without thinking about this, but it occurred to me that perhaps if there is no "ex herb" indication (other than SLBI) for instance, BUT a custom printed label shows the specimen was collected by a certain person (that is, the collector's name is machine printed on the label), is it a fair assumption that this specimen is de facto from their herbaria and therefore "ex herb" the collector? I have not presumed to indicate this on any specimen, of course, but suddenly got a little panicky thinking that perhaps I should have been doing so...

(From this note and my other questions it might be clear I am not a plant person per se but rather a geographical one, so please excuse the naivete....)

k

[David Price]

I think the strict answer to your question must be "no".

Consider a specimen collected by A Ley which he either
(i) retains in his own herbarium; or
(ii) communicates to the BEC; or
(iii) gives to a friend.

In which alternative is the specimen properly described as 'ex herb A Ley'?
In "(i)" certainly, but the others?

I have also wondered about the 'det.' field. Should that not in most cases be 'conf.', e.g. where Phipps has had his say?

[oldnick]

I agree about 'confirmed' rather than 'original identification by'. In most of the edits I have seen, the latter has been entered wrongly, when the species name is clear on the original label - a pity, arguably devalues the original collector.
Complication comes if there is a name change resulting in two or more names when one is unfamiliar - as this is usually with the scarcer species however, it merits checking the name in Stace or CTW if to hand, which usually clarifies the issue.