|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Feb 3, 2016 9:49:55 GMT -8
I do like the idea Adam of an "ex Coll." label being put on the specimen to indicate the collection it was once a part of ! Great suggestion. Never really thought of that. Will now have to go over my collection and add about 100 labels or so. I should also add that I have never attributed any credit to any dealer I have ever purchased an item from. Who cares? They are just a dealer (a middleman). Unless they could look me in the eye and tell me they "personally" collected my specimen; their name has no meaning. Perhaps, in Europe there are collector / dealers and it might be wise to find out if some of what they sell is personally collected. However, here in th U.S. what few dealers still exist are strictly in this for business / monetary reasons.
On another point of interest I wanted to say that I have never really seen leg. (capitalized). I worked at a museum for 8 years and looked over many old collections including Herman Strecker's and the format leg. was used exclusively to indicate the actual collector. I couldn't help but notice Mr. Koehn in his above post regarding label format capitalized leg. (Leg.) While it still means the same thing (and I'm just being a little technical here); is that technically correct to do? Would like to hear what you may have to say on this question Adam. Thank you !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Feb 3, 2016 11:29:29 GMT -8
All this detail about the provenance of the specimen after it died, and not a bit of discussion about the habitat (biotope) that it used when it was alive!
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Feb 3, 2016 11:45:16 GMT -8
In agreement that Leg. is unnecessary on the data labels. All of my labels and most professionals labels just end with the people or person that collected the specimen. First name, last name. If the specimen was given to you or purchased it can be helpful to indicate where it came from, I agree an "ex. coll...xyz" label should be added on a separate label. Claude - extra labels are just a fact of time. As data are extracted from the specimens, labels are added to track this information. As a person in charge of millions of specimens and large digitization projects, these give me a headache and inevitably are left out of the databse - but they are always on the specimen.
A data label should ONLY include the name of a collector (or lack thereof). If you start mixing in sources of the specimen then those names will absolutely be mistaken for the collector. When a specimen is donated to a collection it gets another label indicating "specimen donated by XYZ, Accesson #...)
A separate determination label should include something like: Det.xyz (Author, year) C. Grinter, 2016.
Yes, lots of labels. But they are important. And if fraud happens then there isn't anything you can do to prevent it - just treat those records as suspicious and if need-be, remove them from your collection.
|
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Feb 3, 2016 14:51:50 GMT -8
jshuey, I've never known of any collector to put habitat type on their data labels. Unless, that's become the modern "new" thing to do it's something wholly absent in every collection I've ever seen going back over 100 years ! I have certainly seen labeling denoting that a specimen was bred (with labels ex-pupa or ex-bred) noted with the specimen. Does that make it right that habitat wasn't a standardized category for insect labels ? Maybe not but, perhaps because habitat is something which can change quickly whether it be by mans doing or natures doing it has always been given little regard. What is most important is that at a given place and at a given time that particular specimen was found right there (or very near to that location) if the data is considered genuine and accurate. I would add that specimens "personally" collected by someone probably bear more providence and believability than most exotics since most enthusiasts/collectors seldom get the opportunity in life to collect in tropical locals.
Chris Grinter, I understand that the use of (legere) leg. may perhaps be considered obsolete, and/or un-necessary these days. I think it has really always been a collector's perogative. I have personally seen leg. utilized far, far more often in collections dating back pre-1980's. However, I have seen certain individuals only use their name or an abbreviation of it. Two such well known collectors I can mention were Josef Knull and Alexander K. Wyatt.
What I'm driving at is that in every book or manual that I have ever seen (pre-1980's) on collection methods or standards; leg. always preceded the collector's name. It was a standard of sorts (which perhaps not everyone adhered to) but, it was a guideline / practice which should be followed for consistency of scientific method. Maybe, certain folks didn't see it that way. Maybe, it was viewed by them as more of a rule which they could bend or break. But, hey somebody always has to play in LEFT field correct! Anyway, I feel that simply wholesale brushing aside a long standing standard in our scientific method is a loss and a pity in its own right. "Watering down" that standard is just as pitiful. Sure, stamp or write your name at the bottom of that label and somehow it comes across more --- as a hollow statement than anything else. But, put (leg.) in front of your name and it just lends more substance and meaning to that specimen. It just doesn't come across so clinically sterile as: John Doe
Again, it's ultimately a matter of choice and a collector's perogative but, I still say keep the standard in place as a guideline and let the individual choose instead of trashing the idea of it as extraneous. Just my opinion on what some may view as a trifle subject.
|
|
leptraps
Banned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,397
|
Post by leptraps on Feb 3, 2016 16:48:45 GMT -8
My previous post on the proper method to label specimens was taught to me by Dr. J.F.Gates Clark of the USMNH. I was 14 years old when my Grandmother took me to the Smithsonian (USMNH) in Washington D.C. There I met Dr. G.F. Gates Clark. I spent an entire afternoon with Dr.Clark. He taugh me how to prepare specimens, labeling, and the importance of maintaining a collection and keeping detailed field notes.To this day I still follow the methods I was taught as a boy.
The labeling of specimens is extremely important. It is the scientific information that makes a collection valuable. I maintain and curate a personal collection of over of over 100,000 specimens. Every specimen in my collection is labeled and identified and in Taxonomic Order.
It was how I was taught. I have known Lepidopterist who number their specimens and them record them in a note book. Should that note book be lost or seperated the specimens are worthless.
As John Shuey mentioned, habitat information is important. That is why I keep field notes. And, I have scanned most of my field notes from 2015 to 1992. Hopefully before I pass on, I would like to have them all scanned.
When I determined where my collection would go when I am gone. It is considered a valuable collection. It is well prepared and with excellent information. I began using GPS information in 2003.
Labeling of specimens IS extremely important.
|
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Feb 3, 2016 20:28:28 GMT -8
I received a box of papered specimens from Robert Ducarme. How do I label these when I spread them?
He paid a collector to go catch them for his collection, but the specimens were never actually part of it, and the collectors are only in it for the income and have little knowledge on what they're collecting beyond the fact that they must have made some wonderful observations over the years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Feb 3, 2016 21:32:09 GMT -8
Cabintom, on your specimen labels (regarding these particular specimens) I would put : Gift of R. Ducarme or perhaps Gift of Robert Ducarme (whichever suits your taste). If you purchased them from him I would use the words Purchased from vs. Gift of. I have seen this done in old collections where the owner received something as a gift or purchase from someone else notable or otherwise known in the community of collectors. This sort of notation is most often found where the collector name would be on the label.
I think the choice of wording is appropriate as it does not directly imply that the specimen(s) were actually part of Mr. Ducarme's collection.
|
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Feb 4, 2016 7:16:14 GMT -8
jshuey, I've never known of any collector to put habitat type on their data labels. Unless, that's become the modern "new" thing to do it's something wholly absent in every collection I've ever seen going back over 100 years ! I have certainly seen labeling denoting that a specimen was bred (with labels ex-pupa or ex-bred) noted with the specimen. Does that make it right that habitat wasn't a standardized category for insect labels ? Maybe not but, perhaps because habitat is something which can change quickly whether it be by mans doing or natures doing it has always been given little regard. What is most important is that at a given place and at a given time that particular specimen was found right there (or very near to that location) if the data is considered genuine and accurate. I would add that specimens "personally" collected by someone probably bear more providence and believability than most exotics since most enthusiasts/collectors seldom get the opportunity in life to collect in tropical locals. You are indeed correct - historically collectors have not included habitat information. For example - there are two species known from single specimens collected in the late 1800's that are labeled "Belize" plus the year. That was enough for them. But I've never encountered these two bugs - and I have no clue where to look or in what habitats. I don't know what time of year they were collected - dry season, beginning of the rains - no idea?. But Belize - 1896 was plenty of data back then - right? The flip side to this is that about 20 years ago George Austin collected Splendeuptychia kendalli from Tikal National Park in adjacent Guatemala. This bug is not yet known from Belize. George included habitat information on his labels - and every last one of his Splendeuptychia kendalli came from "bajo swamp", a unique forested karst wetland type found in Belize only in the Rio Bravo Conservation Area (about 40 miles from Tikal). I know exactly where to go to try and locate this bug now. Not just a "place" to go, but which habitat patches to search within at that place (Rio Bravo is a few hundred thousand acres!). By the way - these are terrible little swamps to collect in - the stunted trees are wicked and spined, and the mosquitos are mean as hell. When we worked at Rio Bravo previously, I tried to avoid bajo habitat except when we had to sample it. But "thank you George" - now I know we have to head back in and search for this bug! That's the difference - do you want your bugs to just be dead bodies from a place - or do you want them to carry some ecological information so that 100 years from now, someone can understand what the bugs were doing there, and how that site may have changed? Below are some example labels that I've printed over the last few years - it's not that hard to include this type of information! ( by the way, the codes on the Belize labels are used to capture the data - G2D1051 means everything else that is printed on that label. Actually more - because it geo-references into our spatial dataset as well for mapping purposes). John Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Feb 4, 2016 9:47:37 GMT -8
In the case of specimens that came from a dealer or via someone else who didn't catch them (not 'leg. Xxx') or house them in their collection (not 'ex Coll. Yyy'), the point of including 'ex Zzz' in the data label is to show provenance, and this can tie the specimen to other specimens the same dealer sold from the same original source. For example if a dealer was known to have obtained material from a precise locality, or even was known to have sold material that came from a rather unreliable source, the 'ex Zzz' information may possibly be useful when studying specimens in future. This can both be of positive or negative value to researchers, but if the information is not included then no-one will know, similar to John's point about ecological information.
As far as I know it is normal to write 'leg.' with a small L, but I can't imagine that using a capital L would change the meaning.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Feb 4, 2016 9:58:16 GMT -8
I personally would love to include habitat information when labeling, but I'm not sure how to go about correctly & scientifically defining a habitat.
For example how would I define the habitat that is my yard and surrounding neighbourhood? I live in a city of 1 million people, but we've only got a 1km stretch of asphalt. I have a rather large yard, though not much of a garden, and most of the plants that had previously been planted here aren't native. In the immediate surroundings there's a number of formerly cultivated and now overgrown fields. All this to say that because I'm a 10 min walk from downtown I want to say it's an urban habitat, but that conjures images of paved parking lots and whatnot...
|
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Feb 4, 2016 10:54:47 GMT -8
I personally would love to include habitat information when labeling, but I'm not sure how to go about correctly & scientifically defining a habitat. For example how would I define the habitat that is my yard and surrounding neighbourhood? I live in a city of 1 million people, but we've only got a 1km stretch of asphalt. I have a rather large yard, though not much of a garden, and most of the plants that had previously been planted here aren't native. In the immediate surroundings there's a number of formerly cultivated and now overgrown fields. All this to say that because I'm a 10 min walk from downtown I want to say it's an urban habitat, but that conjures images of paved parking lots and whatnot... Almost anything is useful. I have used "urban habitat" exactly as you describe it in Africa. Anyone who knows African urban habitat will know what you are talking about. I use lots of qualifiers to indicate the level of habitat disturbance. Beat-up and regenerating to indicate that the forest was gone, but is trying to come back. Secondary forest for forest that was cut but never completely eliminated. Primary of course for lightly used forest. I use the term "beat-up" a lot. If you add a hint about the geology you have things like "beat up limestone forest" versus "beat-up granite forest" - two very different habitats. Combine that with basic habitat type. In Belize I use rainforest, dry forest, scrub, oak/pine, and so on to carve up forest types. (local terms like "mountain pine ridge" and "bajo" I try and avoid most of the time, because no-one outside of Belize will know what these are. We also have Pine and oak savannas, emergent wetlands, swamp forest, and so on. There are agricultural habitats like pasture and row crop. If the area collected is along the river - I'll say something like "riparian zone in forest". Lately I've been collecting in "short-statured grassland" - which for someone were working in Belize - they would know it when they see it. Most grasslands are over your head - and not at all smart to wander into (snakes galore!!!). The idea isn't so much that someone in Australia is going to be able to reference a plant list for my habitat, but anyone with solid experience in Central America will gain real insight. We collect on the outskirts of San Ignacio all the time. Habitats range from pasture to primary rainforest, with everything in between. Just saying that a species was collected in San Ignacio tells people nothing about the insect. These hints can tell them if a species is found in heavily disturbed habitats like pasture or only in undisturbed primary rainforest. The point is, as our world changes, our bugs can provide insights. j |
|
leptraps
Banned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,397
|
Post by leptraps on Feb 4, 2016 14:29:57 GMT -8
I must confess, what John Shuey is suggesting is something I sort of do without thinking about. One of my favorite collecting location is Killpecker Dunes in the Red Desert in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. When I prepared my labels they looked like this.
Wyoming
Sweetwater County
Red Desert - Killpecker Dunes
Bald Dunes
Leg. Leroy C. Koehn
21 August 2013
Or
Wyoming
Sweetwater County
Red Desert - Killpecker Dunes
Covered Dunes
Leg. Leroy C. Koehn
21 August 2013
Or
Wyoming
Sweetwater County
Red Desert - Raparian Area
Chilton Rd. 19.75 mi.NW of US191
Leg Leroy C. Koehn
21 August 2013
John, is that what you are suggesting?
|
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Feb 5, 2016 5:37:01 GMT -8
John, is that what you are suggesting? This is exactly what I'm talking about - this type information will help future workers figure out exactly what and where you were seeing these bugs. John |
|
leptraps
Banned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,397
|
Post by leptraps on Feb 5, 2016 15:59:38 GMT -8
Here is of my actual labels from the trip. The label contains all of the pertinent information.
WYOMING
SWEETWATER COUNTY
KILLPECKER DUNES BLM
RED DESERT - BALD DUNES
CR17A - 3.4 MI. N. OF CR17
ELV. 6,850'
N41̊9825' - W109̊1568'
LEG L.C. KOEHN
27 AUGUST 2013
You can find this location on the Wyoming Gazetteer or with a GPS Unit. This is the exact location where the Light Trap spent the night.
I began adding GPS Locations to my labels in 2005. I began adding elevation in 1988. I actually have a label from Florida, Big Pine Key right at the waters edge with Elv. 1'. It was high tide!
The Red Desert is huge and absolutely immense. We stayed in Rocksprings, Wyoming. From the hotel to this sight is almost a two hour drive and we are about ten miles from the Bald Dunes
In the distant are the Bald Dunes. They are not easy to access. During our 2012 Trip we spent two full days and three full nights. The location is spectacular! Should you visit, bring lots of water. We carry two large coolers. I also bring a shovel, although I have never needed it, I am extremely careful where I go and where not to go.
We set out Bait Traps, Light Traps and Pheromone Traps. I am still mounting specimens from this trip.
The thing that amazes me is how the early explorers and settlers survived and traveled through this area.
Double click the photographs. You will get some idea of "BIG".
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Feb 6, 2016 0:55:49 GMT -8
cabintom > use the "Chasseurs indigènes" of Oberthur ;-) Personnally I use "leg." for the catcher and "Coll. Pequin" to indicate it belongs to my collection. I never thought about using "ex coll" but I agree that it could be interesting to add it. I fully agree with jshuey that biotope information are key and nearly always missing on labels. I also agree with nomihoudai about multiple labels to be an error. |
|
