2016/17 collections: seaweed and marine molluscs

I was impressed by this marine shell collection which was submitted as a resit. It's beautifully presented and labelled. It comprises a wide range of correctly identified specimens, and they're carefully displayed so the distinguishing features of the shells can be seen (the spotted cowrie with its little mirror is ingenious). It was given a mark of 77%.
 

The labelling is clear and includes the type of habitat in which the shells were found - which is useful in addition to the location and grid reference.

The collection includes a rare example of a field notebook actually written in the field. At least, that's what it looks like, with its wind-blown looking notes in pencil. Yes it looks rough and ready, but something of this nature is what the markers will want to see in addition to all those detailed descriptions, annotated diagrams and maps and so on.

Marine molluscs didn't seem to be a popular choice this year, and nor did seaweed. But this is a good example from the seaweed collections that were submitted (I'm afraid my photo is not so good):

You can see where the student has floated her specimens onto pieces of card and then used a photo album to protect them. She collected 15 examples, which were well distributed across the brown, red and green species. Seaweeds can be difficult to identify so larger samples are good as they may be more likely to show well-developed diagnostic features. The labels were praised for their content but the feedback stated they 'would be better if typed' - so if you can pick up a mark or two for simply typing your labels, it definitely seems worth the effort of doing so. This collection was given a commendable 66%, but an extra mark here or there might have been gratefully received. The monograph was given excellent marks (12/15) for being well researched and presented, 'with good reference to your own collection' - another thing worth taking on board.

Here's a picture of the corresponding notebook. I liked the hand-drawn map with personal observation of the habitat (something you won't get with the OS), plus the use of a scale on the photo.

2016/17 collections: ferns

Ferns are not yet something I've tried collecting in earnest - I found about ten species whilst just out and about last year. That's not a huge number and I think if you wanted more you'd have to do some serious looking. It's true to say that some other groups are a lot easier to amass a range of species for. But having said that, it's not just about quantity. One fern collection with ten species was given a 2:2, while one with only eleven got 70%. So it's also about the quality of your specimens - whether they have all the diagnostic features like sori or the little scales at the base of the stipe - and whether you've preserved them properly and identified and presented them appropriately. And of course, you can also get a boost of marks from a good monograph and field diary.

The page above is from a collection that got a first overall. The specimens were praised for their standard of preservation. I think here though I'd want to see the stipe complete, and one of the pinnules turned over to see the sori. It's interesting that the student has labelled it with information about habitat and soil type, but the marker notes that this ought to apply to the particular spot where this fern was found, rather than the preferences of that species in general.

I like the ferns on paper, but several people this year submitted them laminated - this didn't seem to put off the markers so long as it was done well. I think you'd have to make sure the fronds are properly pressed and really dry before putting them in the pockets - you don't want them going mouldy. I suspect some people laminated theirs fresh. The photo above illustrates that they can look nice... but is also a bit of a warning.


You can see some ideas for the field diaries in the other feedback posts, but here are a couple from the fern collections which caught my eye.

 

 This one seems to be an excellent way of showing your thought process as you work through the key looking for the distinguishing features of your particular species.

 

And this book was praised for its excellent detail in documenting the identifications.

2016/17 collections: trees in winter

The 'Trees In Winter' category produced the largest number of collections this year, as is often the case. But the marks vary hugely. To do well you have to spend time finding a wide range of species, taking good quality specimens, and preserving, presenting and labelling them neatly.  Plus recording your efforts in your notebook on identification, habitat and so on. That is - as for any other collection. It's not about going out and grabbing a bunch of twigs - it's not the best choice for a last minute collection, although it's something people do try.

But let us emulate these super collections, which were all given Firsts.

This shows something I feel bad I haven't really pushed before, and that is to include samples of bark, fruits, seeds and catkins - things other than twigs that help you identify the tree. But note that they have to be things that are present over winter. There's nothing that upsets a marker so much as seeing twigs that have already burst their buds.  This student has put two species on one page - they are from the same family, which allows for comparisons. Having said that, this was frowned on by the marker of another collection, so you'll have to make your own choice. You'll notice that the bark sample has been labelled separately (if you submitted catkins or fruits, I think they'd expect the same). This collection had 19 species and did well across all sections of the mark scheme, gaining 75%.

The markers like the specimens to be easily scrutinised, which means that mounting your twigs separately (rather than on a big board altogether) often wins marks. You can see how the twig above fills the space of the card well. It's nice and flat (it might have been pressed, or more than likely selected for its shape) and it's attached to the stiff supporting card in an attractive but secure fashion. It is large enough that it includes the important features that are diagnostic for its identification. The label is neat, it's typed, it includes lots of useful information. Plus, I imagine each label is in the same place on each card. It's no wonder this collection was praised for its professional presentation. Incidentally, it comprised 23 trees and 3 shrubs.

Collections of winter twigs can be quite bulky and the student above chose boxes to keep everything in order: this went down very well with the person who marked it. They were praised for the clarity of the display of their 19 specimens, and were given a first.

The following field book belongs to the middle collection above. It's excellent - it looks readable and inviting, and includes descriptions of the sites visited, details about the trees in situ, labelled diagrams with a scale, photos and maps (plus, one would imagine somewhere, proof of use of a key). You can see why the student was given a mark in the high 70s. 

On the right-hand page the student's highlighted some features of the tree's bark and overall shape.

 On these pages you can see a clear map of the site, plus their thought processes in trying to describe and identify the species.

This page is also interesting as it mentions the coppicing management of one of the sample sites. Plus, a few annotated colour photos are never going to detract from how a reader perceives your notebook...

Remember that the monograph has to be written succinctly, so it covers the whole taxonomic group that you've chosen, but also refers to the significance of the specimens you've collected within that.

2016/17 collections: lichens

The marks for the lichen collections varied wildly. But there were some excellent ones. This one was given a mark in the mid-80s. It certainly looks amazing, with lots of good quality specimens beautifully arranged and labelled in an easily openable case.

The labels were praised, although the markers did mention that habitat type could also have been included. They mentioned that the strict alphabetical layout meant that two of the Physcias were not together. I think I'd want to see the families on the labels too, so that species in the same family would be more obvious - they don't always have the same genus name.

The field notebook was given one of the best marks I could see across the whole class - approved for its excellent detail of site descriptions, notes on species, clear identification and discussion of diagnostic features, with sketches and maps.

 This field notebook comes from another collection which also got a First. It was also praised for its good site and specimen notes - although it's worth noting that should you use someone else's photos as illustration, you should reference where they come from. You should make a clear note of the identification source you are using too.

2016/17 collections: mosses and liverworts

It pleases me to tell you that record numbers of people chose to collect bryophytes last year. By record numbers, I mean five. But I think mosses and liverworts are lovely, and it was very nice to spend time with fellow appreciators. What's more, the students all got good marks (two high 2:1s and three firsts).

You may not think envelopes in a box is a particularly inspiring display, but it's traditional, easy to label and put in family order, keeps everything in its place and stops things going mouldy. Plus, it gets good marks. This one was in the mid 70s. Its standardised labels (albeit untyped) containing lots of information were praised. The student also gained marks for the number of specimens collected, the 'excellent identification' and the effort that had been made in finding species from a range of families and habitats / locations.

Here's a page from the same student's field diary, which was said to include 'good detail.. good use of maps and sketches...'.

The feedback for the moss monographs highlight something that can be applied to any group - that amongst general information there should be some reference (with technical details) to the range of specimens that you yourself have collected.

Don't be thinking that mosses will automatically get a good mark - they require concerted effort. But if you're willing to put some effort in, at least they're relatively easy to find and transport. They're good for people that like something fiddly but haven't the finesse not to break off beetle legs and moth antennae (I'm talking about myself here).

2016/17 collections: (mostly terrestrial) snails

I was very happy to see that some of my snail enthusiasm seemed to have rubbed off last year. There were quite a few submissions of terrestrial mollusc collections, and most of them got 2:1s or Firsts. I hope I'm even more clued-up to help you this year, because my sister and I went on a weekend-long course about them. Oh yes, a woman who once fretted over dirtying her white trainers is now grubbing about in the earth looking for snails. I call this a success.

I could rabbit on about our marvellous tutor June Chatfield (who's been teaching the course for longer than I've been alive, believe it or not), and the amazing things we saw - huge Roman snails, a bright yellow semi-slug, tiny tiny full-grown Vallonias only a couple of millimeters across, snails with hairy shells... I could go on. If you come to see me, I probably will I'm afraid. But it will be more productive to look at some of the more successful collections in an effort to inspire you.

This one earned a First. If you can overlook the slightly distracting spottiness of the board it was highly praised for the way it securely accommodates various sizes of tube. The marker wrote, 'The labelling is exemplary' (click on the photo to look closer). There are 16 different species. I was interested to note that the markers hoped to see a range of examples where a single species shows variation - like the stripey Cepaeas. Of course, you'd have to submit shells in good condition, because the beautiful pink, yellow or brown colouration is in the outer layer of the shell, which gets rubbed off / faded by UV light in empty shells.

Here's an excerpt from the same student's notebook. Its narrative style and clear demonstration of the identification keys was approved of. You can see the page above includes a drawing with a scale: the marker mentioned that more annotations would have been good. They also mention 'technical detail'. So I think you might take that it's good to explain what features your snail (or other specimen) has, and perhaps why that qualifies it as belonging to a particular family, or suiting it to a certain habitat.

Here's another collection that was given an excellent mark - 76%. I do hope those vials had labels inside them (or can you imagine the dismay if they fell on the floor). I'm sure they did. The colour-coded plan on the inside of the lid certainly makes the family relationships evident.

The diary was praised for its level of detail, with good diagrams, photos and maps.

2016/17 collections: moths and beetles

Below is an excellent moth collection from one of last year's students - it was given 80%. Unfortunately my photo isn't so excellent (and as such collections tend to be proudly taken home, it's the only one I have to show you now). You can see that the moths have been pinned and spread in approved traditional fashion. This is a difficult thing to do, and evidently appreciated by the markers ('professional standard!'). They also gave good marks for the neat and informative labels (although they noted that habitat would have been a good addition).

It's good to remember that part of this very high mark came from the effort the collector put into his field diary and monograph. Some of the feedback for the former read: 'very neat and informative... excellent diagrams ... includes processes and methods... should record observations as they occur... should make clear which species caught during which trapping session...' 

Above is a page from the field notebook. I'd say that the idea of making a table with standard headings will help you to record everything neatly, and remember everything every time. But even if you don't go down that route, you need to record information about times and dates, numbers of different species caught, your sampling strategy, the habitat, and so on.

Some possibly useful feedback for the monograph warned against citing too many internet sources, and stressed that you should use the normal citation format you'd use in your essays.

Below is the best beetle collection from last year, earning a mid-80s percentage.

 

The labels aren't so traditional but they're certainly clear, and the additional label at the back emphasises how specimens have been positioned (that is, in family groups). The good number and variety of specimens is recognised in the marking, along with their healthy state of preservation (no squashed or legless beetles here).

 

Again, the overall high mark was supported by effort in the monograph and field diary. The former sounds tricky to master, needing to be both wide ranging and concise (which is why you might not want to leave it until the last minute). The latter was praised for its well-organised content, good level of detail, and (take note) its annotated photos. And I'm not saying that you should judge a book by its cover, but its author has created an attractive notebook which was engaging to look through and read. And that can't be a bad thing.

Yes, it can be a frustrating fiddly process to learn the practical and identification skills these students developed. But I think their collections show that you'll certainly get out what you put in, if you choose these groups.