[Nhcoll-l] Barcodes and accession numbers

[Christine Johnson]

Hi All,
Here's what we do at AMNH (not saying it's the best, but what I strive for):

Accession Number: The institution-level number that is associated with the legal transfer of rights to a defined collection or batch of specimens of like taxa or not; this number/record is more associated with an expedition/collecting trip than with a unique collection event or specimen.

Barcode/QRcode Unique Specimen Identifier: A number on each specimen, a pin with multiple specimens or in a jar/box with multiple specimens, that is our 'internal' and hopefully external unique number representing that lot of one or more AMNH IZ specimens (I know, Alaska museum has the same acronym). The QR code is machine readable, but the labels also contain the human-readable number AMNH_IZC 01234567.

GUID: The long string of numbers containing no information that is 'unique within the world' that represents a catalog (or locality or taxa record, etc.) in our database and is shared with aggregators to indicate a unique datasbase record. If someone duplicates a database entry (records a specimen with the same barcode for the same specimen and event), there may be 2 GUIDs, but eventually one should/will be deleted. We can, however, have multiple catalog records with the same Specimen Bar/QRcode and two different GUIDs, if the pin or jar has multiple taxa (like parasite wasp & host bug) on one pin. In that case the two unique GUIDs for those catalog records are valid. To me, the GUID is a machine sharing number that I wouldn't even attempt to try to type/write.

Perfect, no, but so far it's been okay.
Chris

Please note due to COVID-19 concerns, our collections are closed to visitors until further notice.

Chris Johnson, Ph.D.<https://www.amnh.org/research/staff-directory/christine-johnson>
Curatorial Associate
Division of Invertebrate Zoology<https://www.amnh.org/research/invertebrate-zoology>
American Museum of Natural History<https://www.amnh.org/research/invertebrate-zoology>
cjohnson at amnh.org<mailto:cjohnson at amnh.org>

Managing Editor, Entomologica Americana<https://nyentsocjournal.org/>
Associate Editor, Journal of Negative Results - EEB
IMLS Coral Rehousing Project<https://cjohnson192.wixsite.com/amnh-cnidaria-corals>





From: Nhcoll-l <nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu> On Behalf Of Bentley, Andrew Charles
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 12:48 PM
To: Douglas Yanega <dyanega at gmail.com>; nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu
Subject: Re: [Nhcoll-l] Barcodes and accession numbers

EXTERNAL SENDER

Doug

Yes, GUIDs are important but again should not supplant a traditional catalog number.  There are very few publishers who as yet accept GUIDs as references to material examined and until we have such a structure in place the Darwin Core triplet of Institution code, Collection Code and catalog number (or some combination thereof) will have to suffice.

There is a great discussion of this going on in the Alliance for Biodiversity Knowledge Discourse session on converging he Extended Specimen and Digital Specimens concepts that I would encourage all of you to become involved in.  The collections community has a huge stake in any implementation of such a concept with regard to collections advocacy and attribution and it would be good to have as many voices as possible involved in these discussions.  With such a system in place, individual GUIDs associated with specimens can be tracked as can their associations to each other and all of the products created from them.

https://discourse.gbif.org/t/converging-digital-specimens-and-extended-specimens-towards-a-global-specification-for-data-integration/2394<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdiscourse.gbif.org%2Ft%2Fconverging-digital-specimens-and-extended-specimens-towards-a-global-specification-for-data-integration%2F2394&data=04%7C01%7Ccjohnson%40amnh.org%7C5921e96ed082469e15d108d8d8ec6649%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637497857150574324%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=mGaHzZAdfVBwXLM9vud%2FPkKKvsQwBrh0w7mnyA4JpRo%3D&reserved=0>

Andy

     A  :                A  :               A  :
 }<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
     V                   V                  V
Andy Bentley
Ichthyology Collection Manager
University of Kansas
Biodiversity Institute
Dyche Hall
1345 Jayhawk Boulevard
Lawrence, KS, 66045-7561
USA

Tel: (785) 864-3863
Fax: (785) 864-5335
Email: abentley at ku.edu<mailto:abentley at ku.edu>
http://ichthyology.biodiversity.ku.edu<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fichthyology.biodiversity.ku.edu%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ccjohnson%40amnh.org%7C5921e96ed082469e15d108d8d8ec6649%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637497857150574324%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=pgiyDLvnOgXBQK9%2B21q2EhlsWi2O7B5ZHGpTFb3i10I%3D&reserved=0>

     A  :                A  :                A  :
 }<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
     V                   V                   V


From: Nhcoll-l <nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu<mailto:nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu>> on behalf of Douglas Yanega <dyanega at gmail.com<mailto:dyanega at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 11:38 AM
To: "nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu<mailto:nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu>" <nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu<mailto:nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu>>
Subject: Re: [Nhcoll-l] Barcodes and accession numbers


In our insect collection management database, we try to adhere to DwC compliant fields. We assign every indivisible curatorial unit in our collection (be it pin, vial, or slide) with a GUID (globally unique) that is the primary reference point for served data. Historical accession numbers, lot numbers, and other NON-unique codes are retained, but in a separate, secondary field used specifically for that purpose, and we only serve the contents of this field internally or upon request. I think most collections try to follow this basic procedure, which is logical enough.

Where I see less consistency is how collections treat material bearing legacy GUIDs, or GUIDs assigned by other collections. Our database accommodates externally-generated GUIDs, to avoid pseudoreplication, but I am aware of collections where their "house database" will (by design or by policy) NOT accommodate externally-generated GUIDs, so they may have tens of thousands of specimens bearing multiple GUIDs. This pretty much defeats the principle of a GUID being unique, and I really don't like this practice. I have even seen cases where not only does a collection add a second GUID to each specimen, but they generate a complete set of data de novo, including georeferences; this results in data aggregators such as GBIF containing two data points for each specimen, often mapping to slightly different coordinates, and appearing to represent two specimens.

Peace,

--

Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum

Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega

phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)

             https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https:%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=04%7C01%7Ccjohnson%40amnh.org%7C5921e96ed082469e15d108d8d8ec6649%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637497857150584275%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=FW342moMFmcykjtZ%2Fwnv3BDOBAFA6I2UyRZ%2BF3fjEJY%3D&reserved=0>

  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness

        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20210226/52f8cb4e/attachment.html>