Mark,
Most museum collections that I have seen use a simple numbering system.
Start with 1 (one) and keep on going. The former curators at the Carnegie
Museum of Nat. Hist. had used several different systems and it can get
confusing. We are now using a simple sequential numbering system.
I have seen all kinds of systems described by people. These systems might
include codes for the year, site, trip number that year, collector
identification, etc. etc. The problem is that when you lose the key to the
code, the numbers loose much of their intended meaning.
When I first started collecting, I used a code number for the site and
then numbered specimens sequentially. If I visited the site a second time,
I started the numbers where the first set ended. I dropped this system for
a number of reasons. I then started to use a dual system. I used to have
separate catalogs for Cenozoic fossils and Recent mollusks. One began with
C-, the other with R-. C-1 is a specimen of Chesapecten nefrens from
Maryland and R-1 is a Conus. Recently, I dropped this system and adopted a
simple numerical system. I now just number specimens in sequence eg. 1000,
1001, 1002, 1003, regardless of whether they are a fossil or Recent
specimen.
I keep a written catalog that has the following categories: catalog
number, name (including authority), location, number in lot, date
cataloged, remarks (including date collected), source (self-collected,
purchased, traded, gift). This information is also on a paper label that
is stored with the specimens. Lastly, if the shells are large enough the
catalog number is written on them, if they are too small, they are put in
a glass vial of gelatin capsule with a small slip of paper upon which the
number is written. I know some folks measure shells to the nearest
millimeter to identify them (instead of putting the number on the shell)
but I haven't found a way to make this practical when you are dealing with
30 or 40 Donax or a lot of 100 fossil Turritella.
When I have time, I will break apart the categories in my written catalog
and put them in a computer database. Databases are great since they allow
you to search the collection records to find information very easily.
Thus, if I have fields for geological era, period, and epoch, I can
search for the Cenozoic material and separate it from the Recent material.
I don't need separate codes for them.
I hope that this helps. I am currently in the final stage of editing a
book for the American Malacological Society and all of these issues are
dealt with in the book. There is a chapter on databases and one on
archival and curatorial practices. I expect the book to be available
shortly. When it is, I'll post a message directing folks to where they can
find out more about the book.
Regards,
Charlie
******************************************************************************
Charlie Sturm, Jr
Research Associate - Section of Mollusks
Carnegie Museum of Natural History
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Assistant Professor - Family Medicine
[log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
