Notes From Nature Talk
Yes, Emmet County is the correct choice!
The format is odd, and no collector is indicated, but you can enter the locality data and the datte (1 April 1905)
yes -- thanks Deb -- they are working on it!
this was definitely a mistake on the part of the imagers in California -- the label probably folds down the side of the box..
That's about all you can do with this one.
Good catch! We'll let the institution know -- fortunately this is a pretty obvious mistake.
Great teamwork!
This is often the case when the collector couldn't identify the species. This could be a species new to science!
Oops.
"Colorado" is all you can enter here.
The top label (box top) provides the only useful information here -- the State is New York, and the collection year is 1914
The reason that the EOL image box just says "fungi" is because EOL doesn't yet have any images for this species
Using the asterisk for characters you can't read is a good idea. In this case I'm pretty sure the date is meant to be 1915
I agree about the date format.
It does look like the main label is missing here-- but the boxtop label does at least some of the needed information
The actual specimen label is the third one - the last in the row. It says the specimen was collected in Mexico, in the state of Yucatan.
Okay, great!
Yes! Specimens often have a record of the various names the specimen has been given over time --opinions by experts do vary!
I'd be glad to try to help with this, but the image link is broken and so i can't see the label!
There is a lot of technical information here -- but all we want you to help us with is transcribing where and when it was collected
Do you mean that you didn't get photographs of fungi, or you didn't get a label image?
The only part of this label that we want transcribed is the information about where and when it was collected.
Yes, Emmet County is the correct choice!
The format is odd, and no collector is indicated, but you can enter the locality data and the datte (1 April 1905)
yes -- thanks Deb -- they are working on it!
this was definitely a mistake on the part of the imagers in California -- the label probably folds down the side of the box..
That's about all you can do with this one.
Good catch! We'll let the institution know -- fortunately this is a pretty obvious mistake.
Great teamwork!
This is often the case when the collector couldn't identify the species. This could be a species new to science!
Oops.
"Colorado" is all you can enter here.
The top label (box top) provides the only useful information here -- the State is New York, and the collection year is 1914
The reason that the EOL image box just says "fungi" is because EOL doesn't yet have any images for this species
Using the asterisk for characters you can't read is a good idea. In this case I'm pretty sure the date is meant to be 1915
I agree about the date format.
It does look like the main label is missing here-- but the boxtop label does at least some of the needed information
The actual specimen label is the third one - the last in the row. It says the specimen was collected in Mexico, in the state of Yucatan.
Okay, great!
Yes! Specimens often have a record of the various names the specimen has been given over time --opinions by experts do vary!
I'd be glad to try to help with this, but the image link is broken and so i can't see the label!
There is a lot of technical information here -- but all we want you to help us with is transcribing where and when it was collected
Do you mean that you didn't get photographs of fungi, or you didn't get a label image?
The only part of this label that we want transcribed is the information about where and when it was collected.