"Orstan, Aydin" wrote:

> 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 data
> base that is initially based on the taxonomy of the animal.  While there is
> work involved in relabeling when the taxanomic names change, isn't this work
> that should be done anyway in order to keep the collection accurate?
>
> 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