Two species name on front of folder in Herb C, one in parantheses

[beckerah]

Originally added to Issues Log (#114):
Details: On the front of a folder in Herbarium C, we found two species names, the last written in parantheses: Taraxacum pycnolobum (T. latisectiforme Markl.)
Action taken: CL determined that the latter is a synonym and should be ignored. Current taxonomic status can be checked here: https://powo.science.kew.org/, but if we run into this often, we do not have time to check. The specimens were entered into app as Taraxacum pycnolobum Dahlst.

Another example of this was found at the end of July 2024 and included as a note in DigiApp:
Export: NHMD_Herba_20240724_14_31_SS_JMJ
Catalog Numbers: 1301948 – 1301965
Note: Myosotis laxa Lehm. f. subrepens Neum (=M. laxa ssp. laxa?)

I've reached out to Jens to clarify what he wants us to do with this data in the future. Should we retain the part in parentheses as a remark on the specimen record, for example? He's out of the office this week but should be back on Monday (Oct. 21.)

[beckerah]

Just an update: Jens told me that he and Hannah are discussing this. They definitely need to retain the entirety of the data on the folder label, as it's part of the 'stored under' name. Right now, they're leaning towards keeping everything in parentheses as a remark but they'll get back to me with a final decision in the next few days.

[beckerah]

I've emailed Jens and Hannah to follow up on this issue.

[beckerah]

I received the following reply from Hannah:

Jens and I have discussed it further, and agreed that parts of the determination that are in parentheses need to be kept, but can go in the notes field. This is because the parentheses can indicate uncertain identifications or other elements which won’t necessarily be noted on individual sheets in the Danish herbarium, and we don’t want to lose this information.

I will also double check this decision with our curator/s at our next curatorial meeting, but this won’t be for a number of weeks.

@RebekkaML What are your thoughts? For herbarium folders, if there is any taxonomy in parentheses, for example: Taraxacum pycnolobum (T. latisectiforme Markl.) they would like what's in the parentheses to go in the notes field for those specimens. Is that doable or do you think it would slow down digitization significantly? Do you have any other thoughts or concerns regarding this plan?

[RebekkaML]

I think that is doable. That is not how we did it in the past, but we can start doing it from now on. The note field in the App currently isn't sticky, so having to enter it for each separate specimen would be annoying, but we can copy and paste it directly in the database instead.

[beckerah]

@RebekkaML
Cool, then let's try that and see how it goes. If it's too annoying, another possibility is that the digitizer could add it only to the first record in the notes field and I can pull it down to the others that have identical taxonomy when I'm checking/correcting BUT since I'm not the one with the actual folder in front of me, I feel like this could open us up to more room for error than having the digitizer just do it onsite. 🤷

How do we let the digitizers know about the change in protocol? Do you want to pass this on or should I?

[RebekkaML]

I can notify the other digitizers and update it in the guides, I'd just like to check in with @PipBrewer to make sure this won't cause any problems further down the line.

[RebekkaML]

Since this issue appears to be more complicated, the interims solution for digitizers is to write any additional folder information into the notes field until a longterm solution has been found. I will inform the digitizers and update the issues log.

[PipBrewer]

Had a meeting with Jens S, Hannah ME, Rebekka ML and Allison HB this morning, to clarify a few things. I said that we would write a summary, and make some recommendations (and include Natasha in this).

Sent the following summary for initial discussion to Fedor S, Zsuzsanna P, Allison SB and Rebekka ML today:
Specimen info on front of folders in NHMD herbarium.docx

[RebekkaML]

During the meeting I said that I feel like there are folder labels where insecure determinations are part of the printed label and not added later in handwriting, I just saw that I actually took a picture of the case I meant.

[PipBrewer]

See comments in Nov 21 box (above) and email sent on same day. For comments, e.g., @FedorSteeman

[FedorSteeman]

In principle, these could be simply entered as is, i.e. make the species name a single string not interrupted by spaces. They will then exist as separate taxa in Specify after import. It's not ideal, but conveys the information, which can always be redetermined later down the line, when more certainty can be obtained.

[PipBrewer]

@FedorSteeman Understood, but they don't want them in the taxon spine or being pushed to GBIF. Any chance you could comment on my email on the development time?

[FedorSteeman]

@PipBrewer I don't seem to have received an e-mail like that on that date. Could you resend?

I need to think about how to hide determinations from publication to GBIF. A flag could do the trick, but will need to be introduced and integrated in the whole first.

[FedorSteeman]

For the record, two of the options suggested in the e-mail that required changes to the app were the following:

4. Digitisers add the full string as it appears on the front of the folder to the notes field in the Digi App. When mapping to Specify this would go in the specimen remarks table (not the determination remarks). Only the first part of the taxon name (Myosotis laxa Lehm. f. subrepens Neum) would be associated with the specimen record (as the associated taxon) and would be marked as stored under. This is a partial and relatively quick solution, but is still not ideal. Making the Digi App notes field sticky is relatively easy, but would necessitate some testing and a new release. Having the full stored under string present as a note is useful, but likely to be missed as it is not associated with the determination. Estimated development time Fedor???
5. As per 4, but we develop the Digi App so it is possible to put in two different types of notes: taxon notes and general specimen notes (e.g., tabs in the notes field?). This would then put the entire string in the remarks field associated with the determination and stored under is ticked, but the taxon tree retains its integrity and the name pushed to GBIF is the first part only. This would necessitate the collections manager/curator knowing to look in the remarks field associated with the determination to get the true stored under name. Estimated development time Fedor???

Option 4 is extremely trivial and can be done well under a day.

Option 5 would take a bit more, but adding a new field to the interface and then making sure it’s mapped to determination remarks is a small feat. I’d say a day’s work.