Specimen Labels

[Kenelm Philip]

	Doug Yanega said:

> Of all the data on the label, the collector's name is the least important
> thing, unless there's some particular historical value...

	It's not that often I disagree with Doug--but I have spent a lot
of time in various museums tracking down old specimens from Alaska, and
there _is_ one important reason for including the collector's name: the
_collector_ (in most cases) is the person responsible for the data on the
locality label. When working with historical specimens, one often comes
across problems due to incorrect labeling--and there it can help if you
have information as to the reputation of the collector. For example, I
would never trust a specimen collected by Colin Wyatt, since he is sus-
pected of having relabeled material. I have also learned to be careful
about material from the Comstock collection, some of which appears to have
been incorrectly labeled by preparators.

	In time, _all_ material will have 'historical value', so it is
always important to have the collector's name.

							Ken Philip
fnkwp at uaf.edu

P.S. I omitted sex from my list of label data--that should be added.
Fortunately it doesn't take up much space...  :-)