An Introduction to the Botanical Type Specimen Register

the U. S. National Herbarium” (compiled by U. S.
National Herbarium staff for internal use, 1965).
COLLECTION NuMBER.-ordinarily this will be the
collector’s own number, but when there is no trustworthy
means of determining his number, or if he
had none, a serial collecting number assigned by an
institution or expedition may be recorded instead.
The field is regarded pragmatically as the place for
a number, any number, that has been associated
with the collection and which, when combined with
the name (s) entered in the “ (Collector (s)” field,
normally will form a unique reference to the collection.
If a distinction can be made between the
number of the collector and the number of his
expedition or institution, then the name of the
expedition or institution assigning the serial number
should be placed in the “Collector (s)” field
unless one or more collectors’ names already have
been entered there; otherwise, this name should be
prefixed to the collection number to make clear
that the number is not the collector’s own. When
there is absolute evidence that the collection never
has been numbered in any series, then the abbreviation
S.N. (sine numei-o), meaning “without
number,” should be entered in this field. If on the
other hand the number is merely unknown or there
is doubt about the existence of a number, then
dashes (- - -) should be entered in the field.
COLLECTION DATE(S).-collection date is recorded
just as accurately as it is known, and if necessary
two dates or a range of dates are given. All dates,
whether single or in ranges, take the form: 28 Sep
1928. On the data form, dashes should be entered
to indicate that the collection date is unknown, and
the abbreviation S.D. (sine dato) should be used to
indicate that the collection is known to be without
a collection date. In using the latter designation,
the compiler should be absolutely certain that the
collection is undatable; otherwise, he should use
da4ies (- - -).
GEOGRAPHIC DATA FIELDS.-Four geographic fields
are used to pinpoint hierarchically the collecting
locality: (1) country; (2) state, province, department,
or equivalent; (3) county or equivalent; (4)
locality. The specific place is recorded in the fourth
or lowest field more or less in the terms of local
reference given by the collector himself and should
include a town, post office, or other place name
that can be found in an atlas. The locality terms
in the fourth field are ordered from the largest to
SMITHSOSIAN CONTRIBUTIOSS TO BOTANY
the smallest units, and unimportant words are omit-
ted; latitude and longitude, if given, are placed last
in this field; and ecological terms, except where re-
quired to clarify the geographic location, are omit-
ted. Because locality data from the specimen and
the original description often are merged into a
single telegraphic statement, the reference given in
this fourth field cannot be assumed to be a direct
quotation. Every effort is made, however, to stay
close to the words of the original collector and/or
author of the description, and substantive addi-
tions or interpolations by the compiler or editor are
indicated appropriately. It is important to the
etli tor, therefore, that compilers set apart clearly
their own comments from the original information.
Quotation marks are used only when the context
requires that the exact original words be identified,
as, for example, when some part of the locality
statement is so archaic, confusing, or general as to
appear to contradict the rest of the geographic in-
formation.
The three, higher level geographic data fields are
used to place the locality in its proper geopolitical
hierarchy. IVhereas the vocabulary used in the
“Locality” field is standardized for sorting purposes
but not controlled, the vocabulary used in these
three fields is controlled as well as standardized for
purposes of search and retrieval. Insofar as possible,
current official political units are used in all three
fields so as to avoid overlapping and inconsistent
terminology. As the term “geopolitical” implies,
concessions to age-old geographic designations, as in
the case of certain islands, are made in a few in-
stances, and “country” is not always an independent
political unit in the strictest or most modern sense.
Such changes are made only within the structure of
the controlled vocabulary, however, as explained
below. Island names present a particular problem,
because often they have long been used in the bio-
geographic literature but do not fit into a consistent
geopolitical hierarchy (e.g., Borneo, Madagascar).
Various stratagems, mostly involving comments in
the “Locality” field, have been devised to cope with
the problem of identifying well-known biogeo-
graphic areas within the file structure of the Type
Kegister. If the name used in any of the three
higher level fields is not obviously equivalent to
the name used originally by the collector, then his
original designation is included parenthetically