Hello Sandro,

A while back I replied to a query on Conch-L dealing partly with the subject
at hand. If you check the archives for 10 January 1999 you will find my
reply, and can follow the thread for further info.

Many of the suggestions in the current thread are good ones...I prefer to
keep things simple in assigning the actual numbers. I use a sequential order
with no dashes, dots, or letters, which I found from experience, can become
rather cumbersome. There are advantages to giving collection site
identifiers for quick reference without digging into the catalog, but I feel
less is better when it comes to writing on the shells themselves.
All the data can be referenced using the number alone, which is sufficient
for me. However, Aydin's use of field station numbers (recorded in a field
collection book, and then referenced to in the master catalog), is to be
commended. That's how it should be done for maximum scientific value.

As for assignation of catalog numbers, I use the same number for each member
of a given species with exactly the same collection data. Anything different
in the data, and it gets a different number. Charlie's system is good...he
has two collections going! Helps to keep them apart in the record
department. In the past I used lower-case letters to differentiate
individuals, but in some instances would have more than 26 specimens...I
soon abandoned that practice. If there is a shell I want to give special
note to in the lot, I occasionally will use a letter if part of a large
series.

I will not rely upon paper tags of any kind to replace an inked number on
the shell, or in some cases, its storage container. Too much can happen to
paper over time...mildew, dermestid larvae...etc. For shells too small to
number, I try to use inert glass vials, tightly plugged with cotton, and
write the number on the vial, sealing it with a coat of clear laquer. Many
collectors also use clear gelatin capsules...I have a few of these in my
collection, and so far have not seen any problems from their use, apart from
yellowing over time (just don't let them get wet!).

Whichever methods you decide to adopt, as long as the data can be reliably
associated and preserved, the choices in a system are many, and are as
idiosyncratic as the bunch of us wonderful collectors...we all develop a
style of our own!

Ken Zentzis
Wichita, Kansas



[log in to unmask] wrote:

> Ken,
> I am interested in some suggestion for numbering, numbering systems, etc.
> Thanks in advance
> Sandro (from Italy)
> [log in to unmask]