Conflicting determinations of species
-
by
explorer36
Many of the specimens we transcribe have a later label which gives a different species or variety name for the specimen. If we transcribe from the original, maybe we are perpetuating a classification which was later changed to a revised name? The program does not allow us to include both in our view, so I have merely followed the original label.
Posted
-
by
md68135
scientist
Thanks for your comment. This is a complicated issue and we are still searching for the best way to deal with this. Technically we want to record the newest annotation (name label). However, these names are still going to have to be checked and standardized later so even if we record the the original determination (name on the original label with locality etc.) it is extremely valuable and lets us know a lot more then we did before!
#annotationPosted
-
by
explorer36
I understand. It may help if we could either omit the species in these cases, which would force a follow up later to correctly identify it using up to date knowledge or alternatively, you introduce another field to flag the species as being updated by a later determiner to a different name. I know this puts on an additional heavy load on some current expert determiner to go over these queries. Another way would be to get the program to enable the view we see after dragging the area to be selected, to faithfully show the view we selected, instead of truncating it, as it does at the moment. In this way we could see all on our screens. You would then instruct us to use the later determiner's classification. The date of the original collection must then still stand as the date of the specimen's existence.
Posted
-
by
Ravno
What was determined to be the best method to handling this situation? I will continue to use the original for now, but someone who is actually validating this data (anyone yet?) would probably have the best / most useful solution.
Posted