[Nhcoll-l] Multiple numbers

[Kevin Winker]

We use one number for all preserved parts (each individual bird gets
one number). Thus each part is easily linked to the voucher and other
preserved parts. My brain doesn't handle hierarchical database
relations with multiple different numbers very well.

Best, K.

On 3/10/16, Thomas J Trombone <trombone at amnh.org> wrote:
> Andy's post reminds me that I should have added: our multiple-catalog-number
> system works fine in our database (KE EMu) because each bird is assigned its
> own catalog record (record type="Specimen/Lot") and each preparation is
> assigned a child catalog record (record type = "Preparation.") It is the
> child preparation records that bear the catalog numbers, so the multiple
> numbers can be easily stored, output, queried for, etc. And the records are
> of course linked together for easy retrieval. Thus a bird consisting of
> skeleton and tissues preparations would occupy three database records: one
> for the bird (with taxonomic & locality info) and one each for the skeleton
> and tissue (with preparation and storage info specific to each.)
>
> Best,
> Tom
>
> __________________
> Thomas J. Trombone
> Data Manager
> Division of Vertebrate Zoology - Ornithology
> American Museum of Natural History
> Central Park West @ 79th Street
> New York, NY 10024-5192
> Phone: (212) 313-7783
> Email: trombone at amnh.org
> URL:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__research.amnh.org_ornithology_&d=AwIFAg&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=CLFZJ3fvGSmDp7xK1dNZfh6uGV_h-8NVlo3fXNoRNzI&m=atYFurC0tZdoHVb_e6YhioB24vdJ9HJS1h9P3pF60aA&s=-_by7_ImZiuzTKqj3hkaedDhFrk2qkGiwwa1FGzpoB4&e=
>
>
> From: nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu
> [mailto:nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas J Trombone
> Sent: Thursday, 10 March 2016 2:04 PM
> To: NH-COLL listserv (nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu)
> Subject: Re: [Nhcoll-l] Multiple numbers
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Funny you should use birds as your example, as the AMNH Ornithology
> Department does just this. Since our collection's inception we have assigned
> different catalog numbers to the various elements derived from the same
> bird, and in fact now have five independent catalog number series: skins,
> skeletons, alcohol specimens, tissue samples, and egg/nest sets. A bird may
> be represented by one or more numbers in any of those series (depending on
> which preparations exist in our collection) and the numbers are entirely
> independent of one another., i.e., skin 800,000 may correspond to skeleton
> 30,000 and to tissue 20,000.
>
> We considered moving away from this system a few years ago but decided for
> the sake of expediency that it was best to maintain it. For one thing, the
> different numbers have appeared in publications over the years. Moreover, we
> had no interest in physically renumbering existing specimens to match a new
> unified approach.
>
> Personally, I think it's best to go with a single catalog number per
> organism or lot if you have the choice. A drawback to our current approach
> is that there is no single number series that applies to every bird in our
> collection. That is to say, a bird specimen consisting of simply a skin
> might be described by AMNH SKIN 800,000, while a specimen consisting of only
> a skeleton may be AMNH 30,000 (which is an entirely different bird than the
> one numbered AMNH SKIN 30,000.) And a bird consisting of a skeleton and a
> tissue sample might be described by AMNH SKEL 30,000 *and* AMNH DOT 20,000.
> Of course you run into an analogous problem involving suffixes with a
> single-number system, but at least you can say for sure which bird a given
> integer refers to: the number 5,000 would apply to only one bird, whereas at
> AMNH that number has been used five times, for an unrelated skin, skeleton,
> alc, tissue, and egg/nest.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Tom
>
> __________________
> Thomas J. Trombone
> Data Manager
> Division of Vertebrate Zoology - Ornithology
> American Museum of Natural History
> Central Park West @ 79th Street
> New York, NY 10024-5192
>
> Phone: (212) 313-7783
> Email: trombone at amnh.org<mailto:trombone at amnh.org>
> URL:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__research.amnh.org_ornithology_&d=AwIFAg&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=CLFZJ3fvGSmDp7xK1dNZfh6uGV_h-8NVlo3fXNoRNzI&m=atYFurC0tZdoHVb_e6YhioB24vdJ9HJS1h9P3pF60aA&s=-_by7_ImZiuzTKqj3hkaedDhFrk2qkGiwwa1FGzpoB4&e=
>
>
> From:
> nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu<mailto:nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu>
> [mailto:nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Callomon,Paul
> Sent: Thursday, 10 March 2016 1:28 PM
> To: NH-COLL listserv
> (nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu<mailto:nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu>)
> Subject: [Nhcoll-l] Multiple numbers
>
> Colleagues:
>
> In some collections, individual components of a lot that are stored in a
> particular medium (for example: the empty dry shell, frozen tissue snip and
> alcohol-preserved body from the same snail or the dry skin and
> fluid-preserved guts of a single bird) each get different catalog numbers.
> The question: All other things being equal, is it better collections
> management practice for all parts of a single lot to have the same catalog
> number (perhaps with different states of preservation indicated separately
> or as prefixes/suffixes)?
> A "lot" is defined as all specimens collected at the same time in the same
> place. This can be a single bird or a hundred pond snails.
>
> How do you handle this in your collection?
>
> Paul Callomon
> Collection Manager, Malacology, Invertebrate Paleontology and General
> Invertebrates
> ________________________________
> Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, Philadelphia
> 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia PA 19103-1195, USA
> callomon at ansp.org<mailto:callomon at ansp.org> Tel 215-405-5096 - Fax
> 215-299-1170
>


-- 
Kevin Winker
University of Alaska Museum
907 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99775

NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: kevin.winker at alaska.edu