An Introduction to the Botanical Type Specimen Register

28
lectioii, which by and large does not include the
literature citations, and supplemented with bibli-
ographic data from reference works, primarily
Mackenzie’s (193 1-35) monograph of Carex.
It should be pointed out that the type collec-
tion at NY was first segregated for security reasons
during World War 11, and the selection had to be
done in haste under less than ideal conditions.
Consequently, many nontype but historically im-
portant specimens, constituting perhaps as much as
25 percent of the total type collection, deliberately
were pulled along with the known or presumptive
type specimens in the process of going through the
main herbarium. The person who compiled Cnrex
data attempted to sort out the nontype material,
and further culling was done during the editorial
process. Undoubtedly some nontype material still
remains in the present Catalog, although it seems
unlikely that the percentage of such specimens is
much if any higher for NY at this stage than for
any of the other nine herbaria. In any event, it
will be a simple matter to delete nontypes from
the file as they are discovered and brought to the
attention of the Type Register editors in the future.
Once the NY data were merged fully with the
US and MO data, a union catalog was delivered to
Harvard University for additions from A and GH.
.4t Harvard, data on types of taxa already regis-
tered were annotated in the catalog, and data for
taxa new to the catalog were compiled on standard
forms. In general, Harvard provided only specimen
data, and the bibliographic data were looked up
and supplied later by the Type Register staff at the
Smithsonian before annotations and new records
were captured ant1 merged with the US + MO
+ h’Y machine file.
When the annotated catalog was returned from
Harvard, the X and GH annotations were tran-
scribed to the main working catalog at the Smith-
sonian, and then the Harvard catalog, as annotated,
was sent to t k Field Museum of Natural History.
Sent with the annotated catalog were photocopies
of the data forms for the new taxa added by A
and GH. In this way it was possible to give the
collaborators at F the benefit of the new data sup-
plied by A and GH immediately, while the capture
of these new data was still in progress at the Smith-
sonian. As a further aid to their work, the col-
laborators at F were provided with an index by
SMITHSOXIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY
tollectoi and collector’s number to the US + h10
+ NY catalog.
The collaborators in the San Francisco Bay area
weie provided with a new catalog incorporating
the A and GH data along with the US, MO, and
NY data, and thia catalog also included an index
by collector and collector’s number. This catalog
was annotated by them with new data from CAS,
DS, JEPS, and UC on taxa already registered, and
data for taxa new to the file were compiled on
standard forms. The annotated catalog and com-
pleted forms then were returned to the Smithsonian
Institution for input to the system.
’it CAS, DS, F, JEPS, and UC the data were
compiled in the first instance from the specimens
in the herbarium, but in most cases the original
publications also were checked when taxa new to
the file were involved. Otherwise the bibliographic
data were obtained from secondary sources. The
original literature was checked for taxon additions
without exception at F.
In summary, a round-robin procedure of sorts
was used to collect the data. To the extent possible,
each new collaborating institution was given the
benefit of the latest cumulative catalog incorporat-
ing the contributions of previous collaborating
herbaria. In this way, maximum advantage could
be taken of previous herbarium and library re-
search, and duplication of effort was kept to a
minimum. Once the combined data of CAS, DS,
TEPS, and UC were returned to the Smithsonian,
the data-collection phase was closed out and final
editing began.
Editorial Process
All entries were edited in accordance with the
principles and procedures set forth in the first part,
and the editors take final responsibility for the
form and style and all other editorial matters of
the present Catalog. To integrate new contribu-
tions into the accumulating data base, differences
between supposedly identical records from different
institutions constantly had to be reconciled by turn-
ing to standard references and the original litera-
ture. Whenever possible, record content was verified
by checking the original publication. In the end,
nearly every original description cited in the Cata-
log was seen at least once by the editors and in
many cases several times. In many cases, further-
more, the designation of kind of type was validated