GUIDELINES FOR THE CURATION OF GEOLOGICAL MATERIALS

provide an immediate image of a specimen to the curator or researcher. Further,
whilst such categories may include a record of size or'weight they could not
realistically be expected to cope in any standardised way with the infinite variety
of shape, colour, texture, composition, and appearance of museum specimens.
They are the data which tell a curator how to recognise a particular specimen
rather than a 'sort' of specimen. Information analysis cannot entirely replace the
information packed into sentences constructed using the rich vocabularly and
syntax of the English language, scientific or not. A description should briefly
summarise the important aspects of a specimen usually including:
simple or alternative name (see B4.4.2.3 above)
colour
shape
general appearance
obvious features
associated labels, etc.
size statement (e.g. approx. 6 )
Some of this information may actually duplicate the analysed information
elsewhere in the specimen documentation but if it serves a purpose, no matter.
Primary provenance
The Geographiclocality
The purpose of data concerning geographic origins is primarily to assign
accurately a particular specimen to its original location. Naturally, accurate data
of this type are of fundamental significance to any research involving specimens,
so indexes to collections by their geographic origins are of great value. It is also in
that category of 'original' data which, if lost, cannot usually be deduced or
inferred with accuracy or certainty. The method a curator uses to record the
location of a specimen is to some extent dictated therefore by the style of index
he wishes to adopt. For this reason, we shall consider some aspects of indexing
here as well as later (see E1.3).
Index headings may be drawn from any level of locality data, from the specific
National Grid Reference to the country of origin. Every level has its difficulties
for the index compiler and hence for the cataloguer. Probably the main source of
difficulty concerils the poor quality of locality data accompanying the vast
majority of collections in the care of British museums: they do not lend
themselves to rational analysis, are not readily reducible to a common denominator
useful for an index and in detail are frequently absent altogether.
Whilst it is relatively simple to advise on the recording of locality data for
collections made now, it is much more difficult to offer practical guidance for the
documentation of older collections. An important point to remember is that, like
fossil names, geographical localities are open to interpretation, particularly in
conjunction with stratigraphic data. Where interpretation is being made, use the
square bracket convention and record the authorship of the interpretation. One
common pitfall requires that curators be critical of locality data. Some wellknown
localities (e.g. Lyme Regis and Whitby) become over emphasised and
submerge other nearby, but distinct localities in the same strata (e.g. for Lyme