Notes From Nature Talk
I can't make one out. Sometimes important information like this is missing from the labels and we have to leave it blank.
It should go in the other notes field. If the name is different on a specimen identification label, it could be an old name that has changed
The species name on this label is a host plant. You can look up the name using google to see if it is a plant, to check.
I think that should be R.F. Smith, based on other records in our database. Thanks!
If there is a scientific name on the collecting label, with locality etc, then it is probably a host plant. Specimen ID labels are separate.
Larrea tridentata is a plant that the specimen was collected from. It should go into "other notes."
Yes, you are correct and right that it goes in "other notes"
That is old! The oldest dragonfly records that we have for CA were from 1870, but there are not very many of them!!
Based on other specimens in our collection, I think this may be 4/30/1960.
I agree.
The pupal stage (in a cocoon) was collected and kept it alive for the adult insect to emerge.That is the date the insect emerged.
That information can go in "other notes"
1912 is correct. Thank you!
I just corrected the Wisconsin record in the Essig database. Thanks!!
It is actually Washington, because the Kennedy surveys throughout 1913-15 were out west. Much of my dissertation is on Kennedy's collection!
I think the locality should be "Kings R Can" in California, which is probably Kings River Canyon, but just enter verbatim.
This should be 1964.
Yes, that is right.
That is ok. The equipment we used to take photos early in the project required that we prioritize labels over the specimen in many cases.
Roman numerals are always the month. This one is actually June 22 1955.
That is the date the specimen was collected. You can click on "Help Text" for different fields for more info.
You can put information like this in the "Other Notes" field.
Sadly, the dragonflies and damselflies don't preserve color as well as the butterflies and moths.
They are gorgeous damselflies in real life! http://bugguide.net/node/view/2640/bgimage
Thank you for noting this. We are re-uploading those images.
Thank you. No need to indicate damaged specimens here. It happens more often than we'd like with these fragile things.
That's ok. At the start of the project we took photos differently, and prioritized label info over getting the entire specimen in the photo.
where you can put the previous/OLD species name and the person who identified it "Det. R. Langston"
That's ok, it's fairly common for some specimens have limited information like this. Here, everything is blank except "Other Notes"...
Looks like Cell 2...It is just a note for a particular study, and can go in the other notes field.
I agree 1986. Many of the older images we took obviously are not perfect, but we now always remove the specimen from pins.
and Ash Mtn. looks right
It was a mistake that happened sometimes in the old imaging process that we had. Just skip anything like this.
April 30
If you are interested, we have a data checking blog post. http://blog.notesfromnature.org/2014/01/14/checking-notes-from-nature-data/
No, unfortunately you can't go back.
Tahoe City is located on the lake. You should just put verbatim "Tahoe" in the locality field. Thanks!
It could be Steinkraus
We need to re-take these photos. Thanks again!
Thanks, we'll address it.
I think it should be 1936.
Well, I have to say that I can't read it either. I think the bottom label is Panamint Mountains. Fill out what you can.
Yes, it is.
I think you are right. That is likely a unique ID number for the specimen. Put it in the "other notes" field.
Just to make that clear. 😃
That is correct, and the essig database is a great place to check. However, you will also come across names that are not currently there.
Amazing, isn't it? If fields are missing like this, just leave them blank.
It says "Upper Mures Meadow"
8(VIII)-16-1982 looks right to me.
It should be the locality, but I also can't find it. Just put "Audran L." in the locality field, since that is what the label says.
You are right, it could be either. But, I would also put July 10 here.
All of this info can go into the "other notes" field. The numbers could be time and elev, and the specimen was collected on a squash plant.
I just looked it up in our collection.. it is 1966!
That is ok, just leave the locality field blank.
That is part of the locality, and you should enter it exactly as it says on the label, "Cotaxtia Exp. Sta., Cotaxtia"
Sorry about that! Just skip.
Yes, Kern County. For locality, I think you know that you can just type what it says here. I don't think anything was cut off.
It is Vacaville, Cal. V-21-1932, A.S. Harrison
I think it is June
Yes.
That is confusing. I would go with that.
1940 is correct.
Yes, C.H. Kennedy.
The locality is "Arroyo Valle"
It is Baja CA in Mexico. After you enter the country and province, the locality field should say "Big Cyn., Sierra Laguna"
No, you can skip this or put a note in the other notes field about it.
That is right, so you can change it to Modoc.
I think it is "18 mi. E"
Which in this case would be Sonora.
Only change it if you are absolutely certain.
Estero Beach
The locality is Annapolis Calif, which is in Sonoma County. Date 9/24/1962.
Should be 1944.
Sept 26
Sorry about that!
It originally said "IX" but the first part was marked out. So it is Oct.
I believe the collector's initials are "DLW". It also says "Ft. C....." which might be Ft. Collins
Just leave all of the fields blank in this case.
I think you are right.
It is: "3 mi. NE Yuba City... Aug 23 1967" I think the label above Timeberlake says Alfalfa? But can't read text before the date.
I think it is San Bernadino.
I think so, too!
I just looked at the specimen in our collection, and it is 2 mi. S.
To show how much better you all are than we were...Check out the blog post on data checking.
The reason is because we are comparing data that we get from NfN to a portion data entered by staff in the museum...
Yes, it is College Cy. Colusa Co. Calif. The "Cy." probably stands for City, because there is a College City in Colusa Co., but enter as is.
I just looked at this specimen in our collection, and it should actually be 6-14-1957. Photo distorted the 6.
I aggree
Oh, that's tough to say, but I think you are right that it should be VI.
Another note is that you should enter locality data exactly as it says on the label. See the recent blog to learn why! 😃
No, because Santa Ana River NEAR chico could actually be in multiple counties (San Bernardino, LA or Riverside). So, leave county blank.
Yes, it is 1914.
I think it is 1915.
Yes, it is the person who identified the specimen, and is short for "determined by". You can put this info in the "other notes" field.
It looks like Childs to me, too.
R.C. Bechtel, E.I. Schlinger
It could be 1958.
Should be 1948
Looks like an additional collector, "Buegler"
I think it should be Vina, Cal.
I think it is April 20 1936
If it says 97, it would have to be 1897, because specimen was identified in 1967.
Thanks for pointing that out! I looked up the specimen and corrected it.
It looks like "Oakland BA Calif."
That is very unclear, but I think I see 1913. It is ok that there is no collector, you just leave that field blank.
I looked this up from other labels by the same collectors on this date... it should be 5 miles south of Culiacan in Sinaloa Mexico.
It should be 1976.
Just enter what you can (i.e. Michelbacher) and you can put a note in "other notes" that one collector was hidden.
oh, that's a hard one. I think I see "squash 10:00 am" at the bottom. But can't read the top.
Yes, E.G. Linsley.
It should be 1946.
I can see that it is Challenge, CA which is in Yuba County.
Oops! Sorry about that. In cases like this, just fill out what you can and put a note "other notes" about the label being cut off.
You can leave it blank.
Put the "emerged 10-IV-1975" into other notes.
I can't read it either. You can enter it under a date range with first date Aug 1 and last Aug 31.
It doesn't look like the right elevation for Esperanza. It should go in the other notes field.
Unless there is another Corona in a different county, then it is safe to assume this is in Riverside Co. Most of our specimens are from CA.
Yes, we'd like it if you transcribe exactly as written. Thanks!
Thank you!
We very much appreciate your work, and everyone else contributing. Making great progress, and working on getting more new volunteers!
The other issue is that each specimen is actually databased 3 times for data quality checking...the total numbers indicated reflect this.
We are looking for ways to get more people involved. Please let us know if you have any ideas! And thanks so much for your effort!
We have many more specimens than the other collections, so unfortunately our percentages are not increasing very quickly.
Yes, it is definitely 1915 by collector C.H. Kennedy!
The information is: Lake Henshaw, Cal. 1 Sept 1969
Good idea!
Over the past couple of years, I resurveyed all of Kennedy's sites in CA. He collected throughout the state in 1914, traveling by railroad.
😃
For something like this you can leave the year blank and indicate in "Other Notes" that year is obscured. Thanks!!
That looks right to me.
Sorry about that one!
Otherwise, the existing records are useful for looking at other specimens from the same collector or location.
A small portion of specific records are already in the database. We are comparing this data as part of our data checking process.
If so inclined, it's a great idea to look at the Essig/CASENT database to clarify info on localities, dates, collectors, etc.
Yes, thank you for pointing this out.
CIS stands for "California Insect Survey," http://essig.berkeley.edu/resources/california_insect_survey.shtml.
There were a series of photos that were supposed to have two images. Just skip these. Hopefully we will get them removed from the system.
This is an exuviae-- the exoskeleton of the larvae that is shed when the dragonfly emerges from the water.
G.R. Noonan should be collector.
This should be Los Ang. River in Los Angeles County, California.
Thanks! I'll also check this specimen in the collection.
In this case, no-- just skip.
It is E.P. Van Duzee
Good question! There are variants of the female symbol for workers and queens, but this one is just a poorly drawn female symbol.
If you see any more like this, just skip it. We will try to have these removed, they were supposed to have two images.
Yes, that's right.
That sounds right.
Just a reminder that all you should put in the locality field is the verbatim..."Lagunas." Thanks!
Sorry for the confusion everyone... If you see any more like this, just skip it.
If you come across any others like this, just skip them. Sorry about that!
Oops! Thanks!
The genus name on the label is an old name that has been changed to Lasioglossum.
Looks right to me!
I think you're right. When you are certain that there is a typo like this on the label, go ahead and change to the correct information.
The bug does exist! We just didn't always get them in the photo, because label information was first priority.
Hi CTidwell3! No need to mention things that are missing unless you have a specific question. Just leave it blank. Thanks for your help!!
When people go collecting together, they often put everyone's name on all insects collected that day.
It is above Bishop, California in Inyo County
Missing a second photo! We had a few of these which are supposed to have two. Apologies for the mistake. Just leave that info blank.
It is another catalog number, and you are right to put it into the other notes field.
Some of the dragonflies and damselflies are not in the image because they were too big to fit, or they are in envelopes. Sorry about that!
Yes, sorry about this mistake... Some of these were meant to have two photos.
It should indeed be 1952, because McKenney was collecting in Box Canyon on that date, according to other specimens that we have.
Yes, I think you're right...
Thanks. Some f the labels were meant to have two photographs.
Yes, Timberlake was prolific! And, his labels are notoriously difficult to read.
With the envelopes, we didn't always capture the bug in the photograph and focused on getting the labels in there. It does exist though!
The collector is Grinnell. Last words seem to be collector notes "not in cop."
Oops, thats a bad one. Thanks for pointing it out.
Whooo!
Most of the info is there: just a male symbol half cut off to the right of "grandis"
But, you only need to enter locality info verbatim ("Laguna L.")
This is actually "Laguna L.", which stands for Laguna Lake. From other specimens, I know this should be from Orange County.
...Collector: Craig
Hi ghewson. Did you have a specific question about this? Locality: San Antonio Canyon, State: California, Date: October 15, 1931...
It is likely "Cal:" that is obscured
I think the collector is P. Rude
Yes, only date and location for this one.
I love coming across these old specimens!
However, I do know by the location, date and envelope style that the collector is C.H. Kennedy.
This is an example of a label with incomplete information, darryluk is right about the info. The paper to the right is another specimen.
We just made a few changes to the fields. You can now enter this into the "Other Notes" field. Check out the most recent blog post.
Seems specific to a study the collector was doing. And, is an example of something you can now put into the new "Other Notes" field.
You can now enter times in the new "Other Notes" field! See the most recent blog about Calbug Fields and Photos...
There is indeed a Seven Oaks in San Bernardino County, California.
I just responded to this in the discussion topic 'Moderators: please read'. Thanks for calling it out!
In the meantime, just leave this information out. It should not go into the Host field. But, thank you for trying to include everything.
We are trying to get an "Other Notes" field put in, so hopefully that will happen soon to solve this issue!
And the camera we were using at that time did not have easy zoom in/out capabilities.... 😕
Sometimes the dragonflies were not included in the image because the specimens were so large!
Yes. FYI, many of Kennedy's specimens are in these triangle envelopes with purple stamp ink and were all either collected in 1914 or 1915.
Oops! This specimen is supposed to have two images because the label was so large. Sorry about that.
Many of the dragonflies are in envelopes and not visible in the photo. Sorry about that!
That looks right to me!
It's hard to say if that is a 4 or a V. But, it's really great that you use knowledge from previous labels when entering these.
I believe that says San Felipe Wash.
It could be, but I don't think that Highway 60 goes through Mariposa or Mariposa County. This is a tough one.
Yes, Sonora Pass is in California. It's best for us if you can add missing information like state and county by using google to find out.
That's all that I can make out as well. David Peterson would be the collector. Elevation: 3500 ft. and the rest is Locality
Yes, or if you are working on something like a tick, it might be an animal. There is no host indicated for this specimen.
Yes, there are often spelling mistakes on the labels. Thank you for catching it! That makes our job easier.
Thanks for pointing this out!
Yes, there is actually an Alpine Lake, which is a reservoir, in Marin County.
Yes, it is 1966.
Yes, Gudi would be the collector.
Yes, the date should be May 1, 1957. You can ignore the Accession number 11 note.
Yes, it should be San Jacinto River Canyon.
Good call !!!! Thanks a lot, we will track this one down.
I might go with 1985, but it's really hard to say with this one.
Yes, you should put Helianthus annuus in the "Host" field.
Yes, the collection date is May 20, 1961. The other date is on the determination label, which means the species was identified in 1981.
That's hard to read, but I think it says 1913.
Yes,that label is a unique code for the specimen. Each specimen gets its own code.
That's a tough one, with unclear handwriting! The name at the bottom is the collector name, which is "Wickham".
Yes, you are right. Just enter the correct county from the list. There are often mistakes on the labels. Thanks!
I can't make one out. Sometimes important information like this is missing from the labels and we have to leave it blank.
It should go in the other notes field. If the name is different on a specimen identification label, it could be an old name that has changed
The species name on this label is a host plant. You can look up the name using google to see if it is a plant, to check.
I think that should be R.F. Smith, based on other records in our database. Thanks!
If there is a scientific name on the collecting label, with locality etc, then it is probably a host plant. Specimen ID labels are separate.
Larrea tridentata is a plant that the specimen was collected from. It should go into "other notes."
Yes, you are correct and right that it goes in "other notes"
That is old! The oldest dragonfly records that we have for CA were from 1870, but there are not very many of them!!
Based on other specimens in our collection, I think this may be 4/30/1960.
I agree.
The pupal stage (in a cocoon) was collected and kept it alive for the adult insect to emerge.That is the date the insect emerged.
That information can go in "other notes"
1912 is correct. Thank you!
I just corrected the Wisconsin record in the Essig database. Thanks!!
It is actually Washington, because the Kennedy surveys throughout 1913-15 were out west. Much of my dissertation is on Kennedy's collection!
I think the locality should be "Kings R Can" in California, which is probably Kings River Canyon, but just enter verbatim.
This should be 1964.
Yes, that is right.
That is ok. The equipment we used to take photos early in the project required that we prioritize labels over the specimen in many cases.
Roman numerals are always the month. This one is actually June 22 1955.
That is the date the specimen was collected. You can click on "Help Text" for different fields for more info.
You can put information like this in the "Other Notes" field.
Sadly, the dragonflies and damselflies don't preserve color as well as the butterflies and moths.
They are gorgeous damselflies in real life! http://bugguide.net/node/view/2640/bgimage
Thank you for noting this. We are re-uploading those images.
Thank you. No need to indicate damaged specimens here. It happens more often than we'd like with these fragile things.
That's ok. At the start of the project we took photos differently, and prioritized label info over getting the entire specimen in the photo.
where you can put the previous/OLD species name and the person who identified it "Det. R. Langston"
That's ok, it's fairly common for some specimens have limited information like this. Here, everything is blank except "Other Notes"...
Looks like Cell 2...It is just a note for a particular study, and can go in the other notes field.
I agree 1986. Many of the older images we took obviously are not perfect, but we now always remove the specimen from pins.
and Ash Mtn. looks right
It was a mistake that happened sometimes in the old imaging process that we had. Just skip anything like this.
April 30
If you are interested, we have a data checking blog post. http://blog.notesfromnature.org/2014/01/14/checking-notes-from-nature-data/
No, unfortunately you can't go back.
Tahoe City is located on the lake. You should just put verbatim "Tahoe" in the locality field. Thanks!
It could be Steinkraus
We need to re-take these photos. Thanks again!
Thanks, we'll address it.
I think it should be 1936.
Well, I have to say that I can't read it either. I think the bottom label is Panamint Mountains. Fill out what you can.
Yes, it is.
I think you are right. That is likely a unique ID number for the specimen. Put it in the "other notes" field.
Just to make that clear. 😃
That is correct, and the essig database is a great place to check. However, you will also come across names that are not currently there.
Amazing, isn't it? If fields are missing like this, just leave them blank.
It says "Upper Mures Meadow"
8(VIII)-16-1982 looks right to me.
It should be the locality, but I also can't find it. Just put "Audran L." in the locality field, since that is what the label says.
You are right, it could be either. But, I would also put July 10 here.
All of this info can go into the "other notes" field. The numbers could be time and elev, and the specimen was collected on a squash plant.
I just looked it up in our collection.. it is 1966!
That is ok, just leave the locality field blank.
That is part of the locality, and you should enter it exactly as it says on the label, "Cotaxtia Exp. Sta., Cotaxtia"
Sorry about that! Just skip.
Yes, Kern County. For locality, I think you know that you can just type what it says here. I don't think anything was cut off.
It is Vacaville, Cal. V-21-1932, A.S. Harrison
I think it is June
Yes.
That is confusing. I would go with that.
1940 is correct.
Yes, C.H. Kennedy.
The locality is "Arroyo Valle"
Yes.
It is Baja CA in Mexico. After you enter the country and province, the locality field should say "Big Cyn., Sierra Laguna"
No, you can skip this or put a note in the other notes field about it.
That is right, so you can change it to Modoc.
I think it is "18 mi. E"
Which in this case would be Sonora.
Only change it if you are absolutely certain.
Estero Beach
The locality is Annapolis Calif, which is in Sonoma County. Date 9/24/1962.
Should be 1944.
Sept 26
Sorry about that!
It originally said "IX" but the first part was marked out. So it is Oct.
I believe the collector's initials are "DLW". It also says "Ft. C....." which might be Ft. Collins
Just leave all of the fields blank in this case.
I think you are right.
Yes.
It is: "3 mi. NE Yuba City... Aug 23 1967" I think the label above Timeberlake says Alfalfa? But can't read text before the date.
I think it is San Bernadino.
I think so, too!
I just looked at the specimen in our collection, and it is 2 mi. S.
To show how much better you all are than we were...Check out the blog post on data checking.
The reason is because we are comparing data that we get from NfN to a portion data entered by staff in the museum...
Yes, it is College Cy. Colusa Co. Calif. The "Cy." probably stands for City, because there is a College City in Colusa Co., but enter as is.
I just looked at this specimen in our collection, and it should actually be 6-14-1957. Photo distorted the 6.
Yes.
I aggree
Oh, that's tough to say, but I think you are right that it should be VI.
Another note is that you should enter locality data exactly as it says on the label. See the recent blog to learn why! 😃
No, because Santa Ana River NEAR chico could actually be in multiple counties (San Bernardino, LA or Riverside). So, leave county blank.
Yes, it is 1914.
I think it is 1915.
Yes, it is the person who identified the specimen, and is short for "determined by". You can put this info in the "other notes" field.
It looks like Childs to me, too.
R.C. Bechtel, E.I. Schlinger
It could be 1958.
Should be 1948
Looks like an additional collector, "Buegler"
I think it should be Vina, Cal.
I think it is April 20 1936
If it says 97, it would have to be 1897, because specimen was identified in 1967.
Thanks for pointing that out! I looked up the specimen and corrected it.
It looks like "Oakland BA Calif."
That is very unclear, but I think I see 1913. It is ok that there is no collector, you just leave that field blank.
I looked this up from other labels by the same collectors on this date... it should be 5 miles south of Culiacan in Sinaloa Mexico.
It should be 1976.
Just enter what you can (i.e. Michelbacher) and you can put a note in "other notes" that one collector was hidden.
oh, that's a hard one. I think I see "squash 10:00 am" at the bottom. But can't read the top.
Yes, E.G. Linsley.
It should be 1946.
I can see that it is Challenge, CA which is in Yuba County.
Oops! Sorry about that. In cases like this, just fill out what you can and put a note "other notes" about the label being cut off.
You can leave it blank.
Put the "emerged 10-IV-1975" into other notes.
I can't read it either. You can enter it under a date range with first date Aug 1 and last Aug 31.
It doesn't look like the right elevation for Esperanza. It should go in the other notes field.
Unless there is another Corona in a different county, then it is safe to assume this is in Riverside Co. Most of our specimens are from CA.
Yes, we'd like it if you transcribe exactly as written. Thanks!
Thank you!
We very much appreciate your work, and everyone else contributing. Making great progress, and working on getting more new volunteers!
The other issue is that each specimen is actually databased 3 times for data quality checking...the total numbers indicated reflect this.
We are looking for ways to get more people involved. Please let us know if you have any ideas! And thanks so much for your effort!
We have many more specimens than the other collections, so unfortunately our percentages are not increasing very quickly.
Yes, it is definitely 1915 by collector C.H. Kennedy!
The information is: Lake Henshaw, Cal. 1 Sept 1969
Good idea!
Over the past couple of years, I resurveyed all of Kennedy's sites in CA. He collected throughout the state in 1914, traveling by railroad.
😃
For something like this you can leave the year blank and indicate in "Other Notes" that year is obscured. Thanks!!
That looks right to me.
Sorry about that one!
Otherwise, the existing records are useful for looking at other specimens from the same collector or location.
A small portion of specific records are already in the database. We are comparing this data as part of our data checking process.
If so inclined, it's a great idea to look at the Essig/CASENT database to clarify info on localities, dates, collectors, etc.
Yes, thank you for pointing this out.
CIS stands for "California Insect Survey," http://essig.berkeley.edu/resources/california_insect_survey.shtml.
There were a series of photos that were supposed to have two images. Just skip these. Hopefully we will get them removed from the system.
This is an exuviae-- the exoskeleton of the larvae that is shed when the dragonfly emerges from the water.
G.R. Noonan should be collector.
This should be Los Ang. River in Los Angeles County, California.
Thanks! I'll also check this specimen in the collection.
In this case, no-- just skip.
It is E.P. Van Duzee
Good question! There are variants of the female symbol for workers and queens, but this one is just a poorly drawn female symbol.
If you see any more like this, just skip it. We will try to have these removed, they were supposed to have two images.
Yes, that's right.
That sounds right.
Just a reminder that all you should put in the locality field is the verbatim..."Lagunas." Thanks!
Sorry for the confusion everyone... If you see any more like this, just skip it.
If you come across any others like this, just skip them. Sorry about that!
Oops! Thanks!
The genus name on the label is an old name that has been changed to Lasioglossum.
Looks right to me!
I think you're right. When you are certain that there is a typo like this on the label, go ahead and change to the correct information.
The bug does exist! We just didn't always get them in the photo, because label information was first priority.
Hi CTidwell3! No need to mention things that are missing unless you have a specific question. Just leave it blank. Thanks for your help!!
When people go collecting together, they often put everyone's name on all insects collected that day.
It is above Bishop, California in Inyo County
Missing a second photo! We had a few of these which are supposed to have two. Apologies for the mistake. Just leave that info blank.
It is another catalog number, and you are right to put it into the other notes field.
Some of the dragonflies and damselflies are not in the image because they were too big to fit, or they are in envelopes. Sorry about that!
Yes, sorry about this mistake... Some of these were meant to have two photos.
It should indeed be 1952, because McKenney was collecting in Box Canyon on that date, according to other specimens that we have.
Yes, I think you're right...
Thanks. Some f the labels were meant to have two photographs.
Yes, Timberlake was prolific! And, his labels are notoriously difficult to read.
With the envelopes, we didn't always capture the bug in the photograph and focused on getting the labels in there. It does exist though!
The collector is Grinnell. Last words seem to be collector notes "not in cop."
Oops, thats a bad one. Thanks for pointing it out.
Whooo!
Most of the info is there: just a male symbol half cut off to the right of "grandis"
But, you only need to enter locality info verbatim ("Laguna L.")
This is actually "Laguna L.", which stands for Laguna Lake. From other specimens, I know this should be from Orange County.
...Collector: Craig
Hi ghewson. Did you have a specific question about this? Locality: San Antonio Canyon, State: California, Date: October 15, 1931...
It is likely "Cal:" that is obscured
I think the collector is P. Rude
Yes, only date and location for this one.
I love coming across these old specimens!
However, I do know by the location, date and envelope style that the collector is C.H. Kennedy.
This is an example of a label with incomplete information, darryluk is right about the info. The paper to the right is another specimen.
We just made a few changes to the fields. You can now enter this into the "Other Notes" field. Check out the most recent blog post.
Seems specific to a study the collector was doing. And, is an example of something you can now put into the new "Other Notes" field.
You can now enter times in the new "Other Notes" field! See the most recent blog about Calbug Fields and Photos...
There is indeed a Seven Oaks in San Bernardino County, California.
I just responded to this in the discussion topic 'Moderators: please read'. Thanks for calling it out!
In the meantime, just leave this information out. It should not go into the Host field. But, thank you for trying to include everything.
We are trying to get an "Other Notes" field put in, so hopefully that will happen soon to solve this issue!
And the camera we were using at that time did not have easy zoom in/out capabilities.... 😕
Sometimes the dragonflies were not included in the image because the specimens were so large!
Yes. FYI, many of Kennedy's specimens are in these triangle envelopes with purple stamp ink and were all either collected in 1914 or 1915.
Oops! This specimen is supposed to have two images because the label was so large. Sorry about that.
Many of the dragonflies are in envelopes and not visible in the photo. Sorry about that!
That looks right to me!
It's hard to say if that is a 4 or a V. But, it's really great that you use knowledge from previous labels when entering these.
I believe that says San Felipe Wash.
It could be, but I don't think that Highway 60 goes through Mariposa or Mariposa County. This is a tough one.
Yes, Sonora Pass is in California. It's best for us if you can add missing information like state and county by using google to find out.
That's all that I can make out as well. David Peterson would be the collector. Elevation: 3500 ft. and the rest is Locality
Yes, or if you are working on something like a tick, it might be an animal. There is no host indicated for this specimen.
Yes, there are often spelling mistakes on the labels. Thank you for catching it! That makes our job easier.
Thanks for pointing this out!
Yes, there is actually an Alpine Lake, which is a reservoir, in Marin County.
Yes, it is 1966.
Yes, Gudi would be the collector.
Yes, the date should be May 1, 1957. You can ignore the Accession number 11 note.
Yes, it should be San Jacinto River Canyon.
Good call !!!! Thanks a lot, we will track this one down.
I might go with 1985, but it's really hard to say with this one.
Yes, you should put Helianthus annuus in the "Host" field.
Yes, the collection date is May 20, 1961. The other date is on the determination label, which means the species was identified in 1981.
That's hard to read, but I think it says 1913.
Yes,that label is a unique code for the specimen. Each specimen gets its own code.
That's a tough one, with unclear handwriting! The name at the bottom is the collector name, which is "Wickham".
Yes, you are right. Just enter the correct county from the list. There are often mistakes on the labels. Thanks!