Notes From Nature Talk
Thanks, m.lobdell. All of those interpretations look solid to me. -FSU #scientist.
Thanks for flagging this. It might take a curator from that collection to decipher. -FSU #scientist
This one is particularly challenging. Wonder if sheet 2 of 2 might be any clearer. -FSU #scientist
Thanks for the annotation, am.zooni! -FSU #scientist
Thanks!
Thanks, am.zooni!
Thanks for noting am.zooni. Consensus algorithm should iron out the error.
!!
I would interpret it as "3-seeded mercury, foxtail". These are common names for co-occurring species. Am FSU #scientist
Interesting. I would have interpreted it as Post Office, as in the closest P.O. Thanks!
Agree #date interpretation is prob right.No coll. # here so can't look for specimens collected little later in mo to confirm interpretation
Keep those #error notes coming! Really appreciate! -FSU #scientist
Thanks, Charles. Am FSU #scientist. I agree re 1970 choice since placement of other things suggests earlier annotation by Kral.
Thanks for note, am.zooni. From #scientist.
#date format is good guess. Another trick: look for other nearby collection numbers by this person in other sites (e.g., iDigBio portal).
Maybe should have a #needblogpost hashtag to request more complex explanations.
Thanks. Am #scientist.I encourage entry of latest name (here 1993). Different curators will accept diff names.
Thanks, am.zooni. Am a #scientist working on protocol for adding this type of annotation to physical specimens. #error hashtag is helpful.
Thanks for note, am.zooni. I am a #scientist and curator of the FSU herbarium (another current project at NFN). Agree with you re #name.
I'm pretty sure that it should be "sphagnous", as in with sphagnum moss.
Thanks for noting!
Interesting!
I'd guess that it should be "slash", which is a common pine here.
Thanks for noting this! I've passed this on to the collection's curator.
Thanks for correcting!
Good point. We can do conversion from latest name applied to specimen to our accepted name. I encourage you to enter latest name.
You are definitely right with that correction.
Interesting! I would not have caught that!
Thanks for noting this! I've passed this on to my curator for correction in an annotation.
Thanks for contributing the enhanced label image!
And I can confirm that it looks like an Ophioglossum specimen in the image. Thanks!
Thanks for noting this! I've passed this on to my curator to add an annotation correcting this.
!
Thanks. I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks for correcting.
Mr. Hyatt has interesting additions to his labels.
The specimen is definitely from the genus Ophioglossum. Thanks for noting.
It might actually be correct as "pin oak". It's a common name for an oak that does occur in Tennessee.
Thanks for checking ITIS on this.
Thanks for noting.
That's a good choice from my perspective. I manage this herbarium. Thanks!
Thanks for noting. I'm going to have my curator look into this.
You can leave it blank when it is not straightforward. Thanks for noting.
Yes. Thanks.
Those are odd dimensions for a plant specimen label.
Thanks for noting. The annotation name can go in without the ?. However, I have notified the collection's curator of this.
That's right. The genus name is abbreviated in the annotation.
Thanks for the correction!
I've notified the collection's curator about the name.
ITIS and TPL are both good resources. As a plant taxonomist, I find that TPL is a bit more up-to-date than ITIS and often use TPL.
You are right. This specimen is Osmunda.
Thanks! I've notified this collection's curator.
This collector personalizes his labels in ways that I haven't previously seen.
Collectors use it when they aren't assigning collector numbers.
I'd say that it is almost definitely meant to be "clonal".
! I didn't know there was such a place near me.
Thanks for noting. This is a great example of this.
Thanks! I've asked my curator to look into this.
Thanks! I've notified that collection's curator.
Thanks for doing this!
That's a good choice from my perspective. I'm the manager of the FSU herbarium.
Or maybe Loran meant to include the word "on" or "in" between those two words?
Thanks! I've asked my curator to look into this to annotate the specimen.
In this case, I suggest leaving the county field blank.
Thanks for noting. We'll do the crosswalk to get the missing info from "sheet 1" at the end.
You're definitely correct. Thanks!
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks! I've asked my curator to annotate the physical specimen with this correction.
The earliest date is a good choice from my perspective (I manage the FSU collection).
Thanks! I've asked my curator to annotate this specimen. I was just out on Cedar Key last month and saw this species.
I'd guess that 90% of the "type" labels that you see the curator is aware of. If you have the time, flagging them would lead to a few new.
Thanks for this correction. I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator of this interpretation. He can check under the leaf.
That's odd. I've asked my curator to look into whether it should be ESE. Thanks!
Sounds right. Thanks for noting.
Thanks for noting. I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks for noting this. The caveat is that the acceptance is according to ITIS. Each curator considers final decision to be own.
Thanks for providing this!
Thanks for noting. The dimensions of this label are unusual. I've never seen one quite like this.
Thanks! I've forwarded this on to the collection's curator.
To my knowledge, there isn't code like that. Rather, it is a random selection of what is left. Mr. Kevvy is right.
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator of this error.
Interesting. If the intention was to delete the word it would have been more clear with a cross-through.
Interesting! Thanks for correcting.
Thanks for noting this.
Thank you for correcting. It might be an older name for that town, which interestingly was part of the Chautauqua Movement.
Thank you for correcting. I've asked my curator to correct this on the physical label.
Thank you for correcting!
Thanks for noting. That's a good choice.
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator of this.
Thanks for noting this. I recommend entering the collector's best guess without the question mark in this situation.
Thanks for catching this! I've notified the collections curator.
This is a very useful note. Thank you. I've forwarded it to my curator.
Thanks for noting this! It is not something that we record in the current fields, though it is noteworthy. I've sent this on to a curator.
Thanks for noting this! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks for noting this. I've notified the collection's curator.
Thank you for correcting the spelling. Your choice re the original is a good one.
Thank you for correcting this!
Thanks for asking. It is not necessary to enter the sheet info in one of the fields. There will occasionally be info that we don't get.
Isn't that odd? Thanks for noting this. I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks for correcting that!
Thank you for noting this.
Thanks for pointing this out! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks! We can sometimes figure these out by looking at data from Godfrey's collections 61043 and 61045.
Thank you!
Thanks! I've alerted the curator of that collection to the apparent error. (BTW: The Plant List is a good resource for plant names).
Straight transcription is good for our downstream workflow. Thanks for noting!
That's a good idea. I'll note the incompleteness of transcriptions in the data and pull the specimen to enter the data.
Transcribing it as written is the best thing to do in this situation. I'll catch this in the data and pull the specimen to do the id.
Thanks for asking about this. I'll ask the developer to add clarification re this.
I agree about codifying this. I'll put in a request to the developer to specify this in the directions.
Thanks for noting this. I sent an email to the developer when it was first noted and will do so again now.
Thanks for noting this. This appears to be a typo (should be "Macon").
That's a good question. Location is fine. Thanks!
The latest name applied to the specimen is the one to go with. Thanks!
Thanks for being so conscientious! It's only important to note if they say something about a field that is recorded (e.g., taxonomic id).
Sometimes they need to voucher their records for government contracts, but it is unusual.
Thank you for being so conscientious! Please do include the ssp., var., etc., but not the author. I'll try to get this into the directions
Interesting! I've added increasing the size of the lasso to our to-do list.
You are almost certainly right. Thanks for pointing it out. This example is useful.
Thanks for noting. It is ok to interpret these cases as Miami-Dade County, which is in the dropdown.
Thanks for noting this. I've added this to the list of things to explain in the interface.
Thanks for for noting! Have added increasing lasso size and re-imaging to to-do list.
"Unknown" is correct. We can narrow it down later by looking for collections with numbers on either side of this one.
Thanks. We realize that some data will not be transcribed, and that's ok. The fields that are used here are the most widely useful.
That's a reasonable thing to do. I've added this to the list of things to address in later edits to the "Examples". Thanks!
It appears that the collector uses a default label form made for Louisiana (with "Parish") that becomes confusing when used for elsewhere.
If a new specimen needs to go in a folder of specimens that have themselves already been databased, we do it. This one did not.
Thanks! If motivated to do so, you can check if this sort of thing represents a likely spelling correction at theplantlist.org
It's not at all efficient, but when I get these I take a screenshot of labels and use that. I've added this request to our dev priorities.
However, the label on the left is an annotation label that a later botanist added in reference to the whole specimen (not just that on left)
When the individuals are small a collector will sometimes collect >1. This sometimes results (unintentionally) in >1 species per page.
Thanks for your work, and thank you for noting this. I've added a request for a larger lasso to development goals.
Thanks for noting this. I believe it to be an error on the collector's part. "Loamy" should be "Loam."
I'm forwarding this on to the developers at Zooniverse and will try to stay on top of it.
I believe that it is actually Eriocaulon compressum. If motivated, a trick you could use is checking The Plant List (theplantlist.org/).
Thanks for noting this. There must be another image in contributed set that has the specimen with the extra specimen paper folded up.
Thanks for your work! Please put the name on the most recent label in the field and ignore other names. (-a contributor of the images)
This is going into my slides as an example of the value of the forum for discovering things you didn't know were there. Thanks!
Thanks for your work. Use the name on the most recent label and ignore the others. (-Austin Mast, a contributor of the image)
Thanks, m.lobdell. All of those interpretations look solid to me. -FSU #scientist.
Thanks for flagging this. It might take a curator from that collection to decipher. -FSU #scientist
This one is particularly challenging. Wonder if sheet 2 of 2 might be any clearer. -FSU #scientist
Thanks for the annotation, am.zooni! -FSU #scientist
Thanks!
Thanks, am.zooni!
Thanks for noting am.zooni. Consensus algorithm should iron out the error.
!!
I would interpret it as "3-seeded mercury, foxtail". These are common names for co-occurring species. Am FSU #scientist
Interesting. I would have interpreted it as Post Office, as in the closest P.O. Thanks!
Agree #date interpretation is prob right.No coll. # here so can't look for specimens collected little later in mo to confirm interpretation
Keep those #error notes coming! Really appreciate! -FSU #scientist
Thanks, Charles. Am FSU #scientist. I agree re 1970 choice since placement of other things suggests earlier annotation by Kral.
Thanks for note, am.zooni. From #scientist.
#date format is good guess. Another trick: look for other nearby collection numbers by this person in other sites (e.g., iDigBio portal).
Maybe should have a #needblogpost hashtag to request more complex explanations.
Thanks. Am #scientist.I encourage entry of latest name (here 1993). Different curators will accept diff names.
Thanks, am.zooni. Am a #scientist working on protocol for adding this type of annotation to physical specimens. #error hashtag is helpful.
Thanks for note, am.zooni. I am a #scientist and curator of the FSU herbarium (another current project at NFN). Agree with you re #name.
I'm pretty sure that it should be "sphagnous", as in with sphagnum moss.
Thanks for noting!
Interesting!
I'd guess that it should be "slash", which is a common pine here.
Thanks for noting this! I've passed this on to the collection's curator.
Thanks for noting this! I've passed this on to the collection's curator.
Thanks for noting this! I've passed this on to the collection's curator.
Thanks for noting this! I've passed this on to the collection's curator.
Thanks for noting this! I've passed this on to the collection's curator.
Thanks for noting this! I've passed this on to the collection's curator.
Thanks for correcting!
Good point. We can do conversion from latest name applied to specimen to our accepted name. I encourage you to enter latest name.
You are definitely right with that correction.
Thanks for noting!
Interesting! I would not have caught that!
Thanks for noting this! I've passed this on to my curator for correction in an annotation.
Thanks!
Thanks for noting this! I've passed this on to the collection's curator.
Thanks for contributing the enhanced label image!
And I can confirm that it looks like an Ophioglossum specimen in the image. Thanks!
Thanks for noting this! I've passed this on to my curator to add an annotation correcting this.
!
Thanks. I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks for correcting.
Mr. Hyatt has interesting additions to his labels.
Thanks for correcting.
The specimen is definitely from the genus Ophioglossum. Thanks for noting.
It might actually be correct as "pin oak". It's a common name for an oak that does occur in Tennessee.
Thanks for checking ITIS on this.
Thanks for noting.
That's a good choice from my perspective. I manage this herbarium. Thanks!
Thanks for correcting.
Thanks for noting. I'm going to have my curator look into this.
You can leave it blank when it is not straightforward. Thanks for noting.
Yes. Thanks.
Those are odd dimensions for a plant specimen label.
Thanks!
Thanks for noting. The annotation name can go in without the ?. However, I have notified the collection's curator of this.
That's right. The genus name is abbreviated in the annotation.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Thanks for the correction!
I've notified the collection's curator about the name.
ITIS and TPL are both good resources. As a plant taxonomist, I find that TPL is a bit more up-to-date than ITIS and often use TPL.
You are right. This specimen is Osmunda.
Thanks!
Thanks for correcting!
Thanks! I've notified this collection's curator.
This collector personalizes his labels in ways that I haven't previously seen.
Thanks for correcting.
Collectors use it when they aren't assigning collector numbers.
I'd say that it is almost definitely meant to be "clonal".
! I didn't know there was such a place near me.
Thanks for noting. This is a great example of this.
Thanks! I've asked my curator to look into this.
Thanks! I've notified that collection's curator.
Thanks for doing this!
Thanks for correcting!
Thanks!
Thanks! I've notified this collection's curator.
Thanks! I've notified this collection's curator.
That's a good choice from my perspective. I'm the manager of the FSU herbarium.
Or maybe Loran meant to include the word "on" or "in" between those two words?
Thanks!
Thanks! I've asked my curator to look into this to annotate the specimen.
In this case, I suggest leaving the county field blank.
Thanks! I've asked my curator to look into this.
Thanks for noting. We'll do the crosswalk to get the missing info from "sheet 1" at the end.
You're definitely correct. Thanks!
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks for correcting!
Thanks!
Thanks! I've asked my curator to annotate the physical specimen with this correction.
Thanks for correcting!
!
Thanks for correcting!
Thanks for correcting!
The earliest date is a good choice from my perspective (I manage the FSU collection).
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator.
!
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks!
Thanks for noting!
Thanks! I've asked my curator to annotate this specimen. I was just out on Cedar Key last month and saw this species.
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks for correcting!
Thanks!
I'd guess that 90% of the "type" labels that you see the curator is aware of. If you have the time, flagging them would lead to a few new.
Thanks for this correction. I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator of this interpretation. He can check under the leaf.
That's odd. I've asked my curator to look into whether it should be ESE. Thanks!
Thanks for correcting.
Sounds right. Thanks for noting.
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks for noting. I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks for correcting!
Thanks for correcting!
Thanks for noting this. The caveat is that the acceptance is according to ITIS. Each curator considers final decision to be own.
Thanks for providing this!
Thanks for providing this!
Thanks for noting. The dimensions of this label are unusual. I've never seen one quite like this.
Thanks for noting.
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks! I've forwarded this on to the collection's curator.
To my knowledge, there isn't code like that. Rather, it is a random selection of what is left. Mr. Kevvy is right.
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator of this error.
Interesting. If the intention was to delete the word it would have been more clear with a cross-through.
Interesting! Thanks for correcting.
Thanks for noting this.
Thank you for correcting. It might be an older name for that town, which interestingly was part of the Chautauqua Movement.
Thanks for correcting!
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks for correcting!
Thank you for correcting. I've asked my curator to correct this on the physical label.
Thank you for correcting!
Thank you for correcting!
Thanks for noting. That's a good choice.
Thanks for correcting!
Thanks! I've notified the collection's curator of this.
Thanks for noting!
Thanks for noting this. I recommend entering the collector's best guess without the question mark in this situation.
Thanks for catching this! I've notified the collections curator.
This is a very useful note. Thank you. I've forwarded it to my curator.
Thanks for noting this! It is not something that we record in the current fields, though it is noteworthy. I've sent this on to a curator.
Thanks for noting this! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks for noting this. I've notified the collection's curator.
Thank you for correcting the spelling. Your choice re the original is a good one.
Thank you for correcting this!
Thanks for asking. It is not necessary to enter the sheet info in one of the fields. There will occasionally be info that we don't get.
Isn't that odd? Thanks for noting this. I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks for correcting that!
Thank you for noting this.
Thanks for pointing this out! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks for pointing this out! I've notified the collection's curator.
Thanks! We can sometimes figure these out by looking at data from Godfrey's collections 61043 and 61045.
Thank you!
Thanks! I've alerted the curator of that collection to the apparent error. (BTW: The Plant List is a good resource for plant names).
Thank you!
Thanks! I've alerted the curator of that collection to the apparent error. (BTW: The Plant List is a good resource for plant names).
Straight transcription is good for our downstream workflow. Thanks for noting!
That's a good idea. I'll note the incompleteness of transcriptions in the data and pull the specimen to enter the data.
Transcribing it as written is the best thing to do in this situation. I'll catch this in the data and pull the specimen to do the id.
Thanks for asking about this. I'll ask the developer to add clarification re this.
I agree about codifying this. I'll put in a request to the developer to specify this in the directions.
Thanks for noting this. I sent an email to the developer when it was first noted and will do so again now.
Thanks for noting this. This appears to be a typo (should be "Macon").
That's a good question. Location is fine. Thanks!
The latest name applied to the specimen is the one to go with. Thanks!
Thanks for being so conscientious! It's only important to note if they say something about a field that is recorded (e.g., taxonomic id).
Sometimes they need to voucher their records for government contracts, but it is unusual.
Thank you for being so conscientious! Please do include the ssp., var., etc., but not the author. I'll try to get this into the directions
Interesting! I've added increasing the size of the lasso to our to-do list.
You are almost certainly right. Thanks for pointing it out. This example is useful.
Thanks for noting. It is ok to interpret these cases as Miami-Dade County, which is in the dropdown.
Thanks for noting this. I've added this to the list of things to explain in the interface.
Thanks for for noting! Have added increasing lasso size and re-imaging to to-do list.
"Unknown" is correct. We can narrow it down later by looking for collections with numbers on either side of this one.
Thanks. We realize that some data will not be transcribed, and that's ok. The fields that are used here are the most widely useful.
That's a reasonable thing to do. I've added this to the list of things to address in later edits to the "Examples". Thanks!
It appears that the collector uses a default label form made for Louisiana (with "Parish") that becomes confusing when used for elsewhere.
If a new specimen needs to go in a folder of specimens that have themselves already been databased, we do it. This one did not.
Thanks! If motivated to do so, you can check if this sort of thing represents a likely spelling correction at theplantlist.org
It's not at all efficient, but when I get these I take a screenshot of labels and use that. I've added this request to our dev priorities.
However, the label on the left is an annotation label that a later botanist added in reference to the whole specimen (not just that on left)
When the individuals are small a collector will sometimes collect >1. This sometimes results (unintentionally) in >1 species per page.
Thanks for your work, and thank you for noting this. I've added a request for a larger lasso to development goals.
Thanks for noting this. I believe it to be an error on the collector's part. "Loamy" should be "Loam."
I'm forwarding this on to the developers at Zooniverse and will try to stay on top of it.
I believe that it is actually Eriocaulon compressum. If motivated, a trick you could use is checking The Plant List (theplantlist.org/).
Thanks for noting this. There must be another image in contributed set that has the specimen with the extra specimen paper folded up.
Thanks for your work! Please put the name on the most recent label in the field and ignore other names. (-a contributor of the images)
This is going into my slides as an example of the value of the forum for discovering things you didn't know were there. Thanks!
Thanks for your work. Use the name on the most recent label and ignore the others. (-Austin Mast, a contributor of the image)