[NHCOLL-L:3389] Re: Labels for wet collection

[Simmons, John E]

With all due respect to the authors of Zala et al., the reported test
had two major shortcomings.  The first, as noted by Dean Pentcheff, is
that there were no specimens in the containers.  The second is that the
containers were so small that the labels were held fairly tight against
the glass.  Those of us who have done our own tests have reported that
abrasion from the labels rubbing on the glass and the specimens rubbing
on the labels greatly speeds up the loss of ink from laser printed
labels.  How well the laser ink holds depends on many other factors as
well, including the chemical composition of the toner, the type of
paper, and the chemical composition of the preservative (as Dean
Pentcheff also noted below).  You should be very cautious about
extrapolating the durability of laser ink on labels based on Zala et al.

--John

John E. Simmons
Collections Manager, Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research
Center
and
Director, Museum Studies Program
University of Kansas
1345 Jayhawk Boulevard
Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7561
Telephone 785-864-4508
FAX 785-864-5335
jsimmons at ku.edu
www.nhm.ku.edu/herpetology
www.ku.edu/~museumst
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Dean Pentcheff
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 2:22 PM
To: nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu
Subject: [NHCOLL-L:3387] Re: Labels for wet collection

There is exceedingly little experimental work testing combinations of
papers, printers, and solutions for durability.  It's surprising that
such an important aspect of collections management has received so
little formal testing.  In spite of that, many collection managers
have very strongly-held opinions, based on assortments of anecdote and
personal observation.  Almost none of that lore has been formally
tested.  I suspect that you'll receive numerous unequivocal
recommendations, some of which will contradict each other, and most of
which will be unsupported by data.

We did run some tests of laser printed labels (but in the absence of
specimens) and found them to be durable on a range of paper types.
That's published as: Zala et al. (2005) Collection Forum 19(1/2):
49-56.  I have little doubt that you will be told unequivocally that
laser printed labels do not work.  It would be very helpful if the
data supporting that negative opinion on laser printed labels were
published.

Given the dearth of published test results, you'll need to run some
tests with your own collections.  Rumor has it (anecdotal evidence
again) that oils in some fish can badly affect some labelling
techniques.  Of course there's no peer-reviewed publication where that
problem has been explored.

If you do run some tests, strongly consider setting them up as a
formal experiment whose results you can publish -- it would benefit us
all!

-Dean
--
Dean Pentcheff
dean at crustacea.nhm.org


-- 
Dean Pentcheff
dean at crustacea.nhm.org