It seems to me that all of the data is important.  While I can understand the
variability of location and dates, it still seems reasonable to have a database
that is initially based upon the taxonomy of the animal.  Although there is work
involved in relabeling when the taxanomic names change, isn't this work that
should be done anyway in order to maintain the accuracy of the collection?  Then
the date and location could be a sub database of some sort.  At least then one
would be able to salvage some of the information from lost documentation.
Mary

"Orstan, Aydin" wrote:

> Mary,
>
> > I would think that a standard numbering system would
> >eliminate many of the problems encountered when an
> >individual's data key to
> >the collection is lost or inadvertently thrown away when the collection
> >is passed along to others.
>
> What is important in a catalogue is not so much the taxonomic info but the
> location and the date of collection of a particular specimen. After all,
> taxonomic names of most species are in a constant flux. If you assigned
> catalogue numbers according to classification, then everytime a specimen was
> moved into a different genus or family, you would have to change its number
> too.
>
> On the other hand, how could you posssibly create a standard numbering
> system for locations & dates? To begin with, a "location" is not a well
> defined entity. For example, depending on the variability of a species, two
> spots separated by less than say, 100 meters, could be considered separate
> locations. Locations become meaningful only when they are well described so
> that they can be located again by the same or other collectors in the
> future.
>
> Aydin