What data should be recorded for a collected specimen?
The first bit of collection data that is required is of course the
geographic locality, which should be recorded as specifically as
possible.  An ideal description is one which will allow another
person reading it to locate the actual site where the specimen was
collected.
"Northeastern U.S.A." is not useful data from a scientific
perspective.
"Cape Cod, Massachusetts, U.S.A" is better, but still too general to
have much practical value.
"Barnstable Harbor, north shore of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, U.S.A."
is typical of the locality data supplied with most shells purchased
from dealers, or obtained by trading with other collectors.  It is
usually considered adequate for general use, but it could be improved
considerably.
A thorough locality description might read "north side of Barnstable
Harbor, north shore of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 200 yards
west of the first breakwater".  That data would enable another person
to locate, within a few yards, the actual collection site.
In describing localities, avoid using non-permanent reference points.
 Saying "100 meters east of the seawall" is okay - a seawall is a
pretty permanent structure.  Saying "on the beach behind Mike's Donut
Shop" is not good - next year Mike's Donut Shop could be Bill's Auto
Parts, or it could have burned down.
 
A second piece of relevant information is the type of substrate on
which, or in which, the specimens were collected.  "Sandy", "muddy"
and "rocky" are the terms most commonly employed.  This is good basic
information, but a bit more description can make the data more
interesting and more useful.  Instead of just saying "in sand", or
"crawling on mud", or "attached to rocks", give some attention to the
characteristics of the substrate itself - its color, texture,
uniformity:
"In sand" might become:
- in slightly silty, coarse-grained sand
- in fine white coral sand
- in muddy sand, intermixed with gravel
"On rocks" might become:
- on exposed, wave-smoothed surfaces of black basalt outcrop
- low on the sides of large (1-2 meter) barnacle-encrusted granite
boulders
Obviously, some minimal exposure to geological terminology could be
helpful
here.
If the specimens were collected on vegetation (either marine algae
or, in the
case of land snails, various terrestrial plants), the identity of the
vegetation is an important fact to record - so, a bit of botanical
acumen can come in handy too.  Terms like "seaweed", "sea grass" and
"kelp" are in the same category as "turret shell" and "cockle" -
vernacular terms that may have different meanings in different
locales.  You may not be able to identify algae to the species level
- I certainly can't - but it doesn't take too much effort to learn
the genus names of the most commonly occurring large algae found in
your collection area.  Recording that a snail was found on
Ascophyllum seaweed in a tidal pool says a lot to someone familiar
with marine fauna and flora, because such a person can immediately
picture the kind of habitat in which Ascophyllum grows.  If you don't
know the name, you can take a sample of the vegetation for later
identification - or, at least describe it in general terms (yellowish
green, slimy seaweed with small balloon-like swellings on the stems -
or - a 5-foot woody shrub with slender, shiny, 3-inch leaves that are
fuzzy on the underside).  Such a description may not provide a
positive identification of the host plant, but at least it will
eliminate many species, and greatly narrow the possibilities.
 
Water depth is an important component of collection data.  Data for
specimens
collected subtidally, by diving, trawling, dredging, trapping, etc.
should include
as accurate a depth measurement as possible, whether measured by a
fathometer or a rock tied to a string.  When specimens are taken
intertidally, or in shallow subtidal
areas, the tidal level should also be recorded.  The notation "under
a rock in 3 inches of water" doesn't tell the whole story, because in
some localities "3 inches of water" at low tide may be hundreds of
yards away from "3 inches of water" at high tide.  Although
scientists tend to use the metric system of measurement, it really
doesn't matter whether you record the depth in feet, meters, or
fathoms, as one can be readily converted into the other.  If the
specimen was found in the intertidal zone (between high tide level
and low tide level), it is good to indicate upper, middle, or lower
intertidal zone.
 
Also essential is a notation indicating the physical relationship or
orientation of the specimen to the substrate.  Again, the eventual
value of the data depends on its initial thoroughness.  Was the
animal lying passively on the sand?  actively crawling on it?  buried
in it?  burrowing beneath its surface?  If buried, was it half buried,
or three quarters, or fully buried?  If fully buried, how deep in the
sand?  "Found under a rock in shallow water at low tide" sounds like
an adequate description - but, was the snail attached to the
underside of the rock?  or lying on the sand under the rock?  or
buried in sand under the rock?  Such details of course may not be
available for shells dredged in deep water.  However, for specimens
collected by shore collectors and divers, such habitat notes are easy
enough to record, and will have lasting value.  As someone has already
noted, accurate collection data is far more important than accurate
identification of the species.  The latter can be done later, even
years later, either by the collector or by anyone who has access to
appropriate reference materials.  However, the collection data is a
one shot deal.  Either it is accurately and thoroughly preserved by
the collector at the time of collection, or it will never be known by
anyone.  For that reason, it is a good idea to carry a small field
notebook, where relevant facts can be jotted down.  Some memories are
better than others (if I recall correctly) but no memory is perfect -
therefore getting the facts recorded at the site makes for more
reliable data.
 
The collection data should also include the date of collection, and
the name of the collector.  Knowing where the specimen came from has
limited value if you don't know whether it was collected 2 years ago
or 20 years ago.  A general statement regarding the time of day
(early morning, late afternoon, at night) can be useful.  Nocturnal
activities of many shallow water marine organisms are quite different
from their daytime habits.
 
In my opinion, careful recording of the above information will ensure
that a specimen has lasting scientific value, as well as maximum
interest for anyone placing it in his/her personal collection.  This
doesn't negate the fact that there are many other details that could
be recorded, and some collectors may consider some of those details
important.  Also, for certain kinds of scientific studies, additional
details may be essential.  Such details might include water and air
temperature, general weather conditions, wave action, speed and
direction of prevailing currents, salinity, relative abundance of the
species collected, presence of other species, etc.  But, most
collectors don't want to write a major treatise on each specimen they
collect, so basic information, carefully and thoroughly recorded, is
all that can reasonably be hoped for in most cases.
 
Paul M.
Rhode Island