Your new skills can help make a difference

A lot of moths visiting a trap in Brunei, 1982. CC image Accassidy.

The other afternoon I was listening to Inside Science on Radio 4, and they had a piece about 'moth snowstorms'. That is, people were remembering when they would drive along in the countryside at night, and moths would be flying in from all angles into their headlights, and they'd have to start their windscreen wipers. It's certainly not something I've experienced in my lifetime. In fact it seems quite a mad idea, even though it must have been unremarkable not so long ago. Something that did ring a bell was motorcyclists saying they used to have to stop regularly and clean their visors of squashed flies. I can remember (in the 90s) saying to my dad that my friend's car was covered in gummy dead insects, and him complaining that it must have meant we were driving too fast. Some people suggest cars might be more aerodynamic these days, which might account for why gummy insects don't seem to be a problem. But that doesn't explain the visor thing - there'd still be insects on visors.

My point is, we seem to be losing insects, fast. Data from amateur entomologists' malaise traps suggest a loss of 75% in the last 25 years. I don't need to tell you that sounds pretty terrifying, when insects are a fundamental part of the food chain and pollinate a lot of plants (including our food plants). It was astoundingly refreshing to hear that the alleged environment minster, Michael Gove, has actually come round to the idea that neonicotinoid pesticides need stricter controls. One can only hope it's not shutting the door after the horse has bolted. You'd imagine spraying pesticides all over fields can't have helped matters, in addition to problems caused by other modern farming methods. So perhaps stopping spraying them might help restore some of the invertebrate populations.

A malaise trap. CC image Ceuthophilus. Nothing to do with uneasy-feeling malaise (though that may be for the insects), but actually invented by the Swedish Mr. Malaise in the 1930s.

Whilst this sounds like environmental doom and gloom (which yes, it probably is) - you have chosen this degree course so presumably want to try to make the world a better place. You can be part of the antidote to your own gloom. By developing your identification skills and submitting records to recording schemes and records centres, you can help make some difference. Your data can feed into a big picture which can persuade the powers that be to actually do something. This might not be a straightforward process because it involves politics. But having the scientific evidence has to be of critical importance, surely.

You might think "ah, what difference can I make? :( " But there really aren't that many people out there who have good identification skills. Particularly if you focus on something even slightly obscure. If you chose to go to a local habitat and record what you find, it's possible that nobody would have done that for ten, twenty years (or even ever). You might find something Really Interesting, and conceivably that could help get the site a modicum of protection one day. And even if you don't, it all becomes part of valuable data about today, and can be compared with what happens in future, and if records exist, with what was present in the past. (iRecord is an easy way to submit a record of anything you find, but if you prefer the support of a specialist scheme, the Biological Records Centre has a comprehensive list of contacts.)

Student A's lovely lichen find. CC image Jason Hollinger (California)

The other day, one of the third years popped in to see me. She chose lichens for her collection last year and got really into them. She'd been out lichen-hunting recently. When she got home and looked in her 'Dobson' guide, one of them seemed to be something unusual. The only species that seemed to match was a distinctive orange-grey lichen with little eyelashy spines around the fruiting bodies. But Dobson said it had only been seen in very few areas and was now thought extinct in this country. She had a tiny sample and we both squinted at it down the microscope. Nothing else seemed to match. I said I thought she should speak to David Hill, my esteemed lichen tutor from my course.

It turns out she was right with her identification and he was "super excited". Isn't that amazing! So this is proof that you too can find and report something excellent. She's brought something back from apparent extinction. I guess the poor lichen was never quite extinct in the first place (though it's evidently very rare) - but the point is, how many people are looking at lichens, and how many people have the skill to identify them? Not many. So your developing skills can make an impact. You can be one of an elite group that is knowledgeable and enthusiastic about lichens, beetles, mosses, or whatever it is that grabs you. We can only conserve things when we know they exist. You will be able to contribute to the body of knowledge of what's out there. Be encouraged.

There are links to over 200 recording schemes at the NBN Gateway.

I love things in jars

You are always welcome to visit the collection of Things In Jars in OJ17. We haven't got quite as many as the Natural History Museum in London: they have 27 km of shelves ( you can go on a tour). But our collection still represents a wide range of creatures (including even some plants). I have little idea about the provenance of many but I do like to wonder how the more exotic ones might have ended up here.

CC image by Mads Bødker

You can preserve creatures in alcohol for a long time. Charles Darwin used the technique when he was on the Beagle in the 1830s, and his specimens still survive (here's an octopus he caught in St Jago, the Verde Islands). He popped it in 'Spirits of Wine', which was indeed made by distilling wine to concentrate the ethanol. But you don't have to go to that trouble: the university has a special license to purchase swirling gallons of the stuff tax-free, so I can give you some for your spiders or fish.

Naturally, if you've been pickled in alcohol for many years, you don't look quite as fresh as you did when you were alive. I do rather like the faded ethereal look of the specimens. However, you'll want to document the colours of yours before they lose them, or it might make your identifications that much more difficult. Spiders lose their colour remarkably quickly.

You'll also want to make sure your containers are properly tight, or you'll get the ethanol evaporating and leaving your specimen high and dry (this is good neither for your specimen nor your mark). I can offer a range of tubes though you might find others you prefer.

The concentration of the ethanol is important too - 70% is recommended (in fact once you start looking into it, a lot of things are recommended) and I can make this up for you.

Looking after a huge collection must be a massive job: this blog at UCL details their 'Project Pickle' to revitalise the specimens they own. Don't say 'pickle' to a museum curator though, it's far too casual :) This is a serious business. The entire UCL blog is very interesting and I recommend a look.

Fish scales

I previously mentioned that the scale count along the lateral lines of some fish is often diagnostic of the species. But I then read something about the diagnostic value of the shape of the scales themselves - they are often similar within a family or genus, but vary between families and genera.

Gudgeon, Perch and Pike scales

The scales also show growth rings or 'annulae'; and rather like the rings inside a tree, they can be used to determine the age of the fish. The Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife have a little document about this.  The obvious rings are formed during the winter when the fish (and its scales) grow much more slowly.

The scales above are from bony fish, but cartilaginous fish like sharks have scales that evolved separately. The latter are structurally like our teeth with a pulp cavity and a layer of dentine. And they completely appeal to my love of repeating patterns:

Lemon shark CC image by Pascal Deynat

Shark scales feel rough but apparently the vortices the shapes produce in the water actually cut hydrodynamic drag (ahem, or maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick and they're a bit like winglets on a plane - whichever way, the point is the fish moves more efficiently).

It strikes me that this subject could be something to include in passing in your monograph, especially if you have specimens that represent the different groups (and of course some fish have no scales at all).

Wikipedia  does have a very good overview and there's some more information on a page from Earthlife too.

If you wanted to look at your scales under a microscope that would certainly be possible. And if you got really interested then pursuading my colleague with his elecron microscope to get involved might not be out of the question. And to think that until yesterday I had barely given fish scales a second thought.

Freshwater fish (or: is nothing simple)

Roach (top) and Roach-Bream hybrid (below). CC image by Jam123

People who choose fish for their collection tend to have vastly more knowledge than I do about the subject (my knowledge of fishing could be written on the back of a stamp). I admit that my only brush with fish identification (bar helping with the Environmental Health exams) is my experience of revamping and relabelling the Fish In Jars collection in the field centre. The ones from the estuary and the sea weren't too bad to identify. But when I came to specimens a previous student had collected from fresh water, things got trickier. Especially as they were all looking a bit pickled and faded.

The reason for this confusion is that some species have a habit of hybridising with others. This is apparently not uncommon, but you wouldn't know that from the identification books. They completely ignore the phenomenon, which probably says something about the psychology of people (that they prefer things to be in neat boxes, and freaky things which are neither one thing nor another become almost invisible. Oh the Fortean Times would have a field day). It was once thought that the hybrids were sterile but it now seems that some do breed (so you can have for example, Roach/Bream and Bream hybrids)... things could get out of hand when you just want to put a name to your fish.

I noticed that the Natural History Museum's name checklist doesn't flinch from the topic. But it's no use in helping you identify them.

I expect if you've got fishing experience you'll have an inkling that your specimen Isn't Quite Right, which should help.

Angling Ireland's site  has descriptions of Roach/Bream, Roach/Rudd and Rudd/Bream hybrids.

Idler's Quest also has a discussion and photos of Roach, Bream and Rudd hybrids.

There's some information on hybrid Chub here.

And so-called 'F1 Carp' are a cross between Common and Crucian carp, a deliberate and popular choice for commercial fishing lakes. There's some information on distinguishing them and other carp hybrids on the Crucian Website.

There are probably many other websites that might help, or you could add the opinions of an experienced angler into the mix too.

Failing DNA tests the ways to distinguish between ordinary species and hybrids tend to include looking at the size and shape of fins, their position, and the number of rays they contain; also the number of scales along the lateral line.

Also, they may not be present throughout the whole country - you can try looking at maps on the NBN gateway.

I can only wish you the best of luck - you might get really into this (record all your thought processes in your notebook) or if it drives you mad, you might want to include only straightforward and clear specimens in your collection.

Ancient mosaic of another hybrid - the half fish, half horse Hippocampus. You're probably unlikely to catch this though you might get an ordinary seahorse. CC image from Carole Raddato.

General thoughts on collecting

Finnish entomologist Johan Sahlberg and his botanist wife Mimmi, just before they left on their honeymoon field-trip in 1873. Photograph by Antero Saalas.

 The Legal bit: Technically, you should only collect where you've been given permission by the landowner. Realistically, if you collect a sprig of grass from a roadside, no-one is likely to demand you are thrown in jail. But bear it in mind that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, it is illegal to uproot any wild plant without permission from the landowner. 'Plant' includes algae, lichens, mosses, fungi and vascular plants. You don't need to uproot anything of course, just take parts of it. If you haven't got permission to be on someone land, you shoud confine yourself to public land and footpaths, or else you could get in trouble for trespassing, and that's before you've picked a thing. It doesn't hurt to be following the Countryside Code in general.

It is quite complicated in law, because there's no single law that covers such things. You do have some rights as a 'forager' which have built up around collecting plants for food. The British Mycological Society have some sensible advice regarding picking fungi but you'll find there's increasing worries about people collecting large amounts of mushrooms and then selling them to fancy restaurants (selling things on is not really in the spirit of traditional foraging).

Also, it is very tempting to want to go to a nature reserve to collect - after all, that's surely where all the nature is? Actually, you'll find you can collect a remarkable number of species from uncontroversial places. If you really do want to collect at a nature reserve, you should ask first. In my experience they may give permission - just contact the relevant Wildlife Trust (etc.) and explain you are doing a taxonomic collection for university and only want a specimen or two of common species. Reassure them that you will not be digging anything up, least of all their rare species. Always take the minimum amount of material necessary wherever you are.  

 There's more advice in the Wildflower Society code of conduct. You might also want to read the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland's code of conduct. It encouragingly says "Collecting small amounts of plant material for identification purposes, for private herbaria, for research or as voucher specimens is usually acceptable, except in the case of protected or Red List species. Indeed, collecting is often necessary if botanical expertise is to be developed."

 The Amateur Entomologists Society has similar advice concerning invertebrates. Although I feel pangs of guilt killing them, the main threat to species in this country is habitat loss. The code points out that "collecting should always be limited to the minimum necessary for the purpose intended, as well as by full compliance with legal requirements relating to particular sites and species."   

It is rather unlikely you'll come across rare species (the clue being in the name). Surprisingly, very few are specifically protected by law. Obviously, if you're in a reserve where one exists, you should make yourself aware of its appearance and avoid collecting any.

In short, use common sense and all will be well. Stick to public places and no-one will threaten you with a shotgun. Develop a casual demeanour and learn to shrug off the strange looks the public will doubtless throw you. Never be without a plastic bag or collecting pot. The latter is the best bit of advice I can give you :)

 

The Health and Safety bit: 

If you look at the course guidance on Blackboard, you will see that before going out collecting it requires you to send a risk assessment to Katy. This is not so onerous, as there is a generic version on Blackboard - you just need to go through it and remove anything irrelevant to your own situation, and perhaps add in anything extra. 

For example, you can delete any of the chemicals you won't be using for preservation. You've survived this long so presumably you are good at common sense - but here's a recap anyway-

Take someone with you (it's more fun, besides).
 Let someone know where you're going and when you ought to be back (a map and a phone are useful too).
Especially if you're like me, take a snack and something to drink so you don't pass out in a ditch.
Take your medicine with you if you suffer from some life-threatening illness (now I feel like I'm talking to my mother).
Take some sensible clothing and footwear with you (and now I am turning into my mother).

Fill in your details on the form - send a copy to Katy and keep a copy for yourself.
Then you can go forth and start collecting.

Preparing fish specimens for a single tank

A single tank will be more work than jars, but it's a way you can display your specimens to better advantage. It'll be easier to compare identification characteristics if all the fish are lined up. For example, you'll be able to see the different number and position of the fins.

Dave B offered me some advice on how to set the fish into position when fixing them in formalin. I'm not a fan of formalin, but I think his method might be transferrable. I think it wouldn't hurt to try setting the fins into position while you're pickling them in ethanol - then they might be more inclined to stay in that position in your final display.

He suggests using a flat piece of cork or polystyrene (or similar plastic sheet), laying the fish on top, and using pins around the body to secure the fish in place. Entomology pins are good (I have some of these you can borrow) - they won't rust. You can angle the pins over the fish to stop it floating away (but be careful you don't distort the body too much or the grooves of the pins will be permanent).

Then use more pins to open and display the fins - you can make small holes through the fin rays and they won't show later.

You'd need to weigh down the cork / plastic sheet so the fish lay beneath the ethanol solution.

I wonder if you could also utilise some expanded plastic sheet to make a background inside the tank, to pin your fish against for the final display. Perhaps you could excavate a fish-shaped hollow to help support the specimens?

CC image by JD Wang

I can't seem to find any photos to illustrate this yet. So in the meantime I will have to leave you with another fish-art collaboration called 'Gyotaku' - a traditional Japanese method of printmaking which literally uses a fish (don't say you've learnt nothing today). This video by Heather Fortner shows how she pins out the fish in preparation for inking - much the same process as you might want to use yourself, so could be worth watching.

Preserving and presenting your fish specimens

Imagine the gasps of admiration if you handed in a collection that looked like this (fully labelled inside and taxonomically arranged, naturally). But unless you have a very healthy bank balance, all those perspex boxes are going to set you back a bit.

Students have been known to make one single tank to put all their specimens in. You have to remember though, that the larger the case, the heavier the amount of liquid inside. Watertightness has presented problems (and it's not water - it's flammable fish-flavoured ethanol) but it is possible. We've got an example you can look at - it's made from glass but you can also try using perspex sheets and plenty of silicon sealant. If you pick the single tank method, there's more information on this page.

A simpler solution is pre-bought jars (you'll appreciate that a matching set is preferable to random jam jars from the kitchen). You'll note that it's an advantage to have small specimens...

CC image by Frank Schulenburg

Here are some fully labelled fish in jars at the University of Michegan. You'll notice that the labels are inside - so the writing needs to be permanent and the paper needs to be sturdy. You could write them with pencil or find a suitable archival quality pen (there are some very fine-nibbed ones in the SU shop; they're marked 0.05 and 0.1). That would be fine (if your writing's illegible you might want to hire an assistant). Alternatively, you might be able to get printer ink that'll take the strain. However, there's some discussion here which isn't very encouraging - it would be a great shame to come back and find your hard work a black sludge in the bottom of the jars.

Museum collections (as mentioned in the link above) would attach the label physically to the specimen - usually by threading through the gill cover and out through the mouth with a piece of cotton or wire. You might not want to do that with a big label, but you could make a small one with a number on that matches the number on the larger label (perhaps made of dynotape or something similar). Or you could just go with the label in the jar. It's up to you.

Glenn Roadley's picture from the NatSCA blog

In the spirit of sharing enthusiasm for pickled fish (a niche interest), I hope Glenn Roadley wouldn't object to me showing you his angler fish photo as an example of the gillcover-mouth label technique. Glenn is a Natural Science Collections Assistant for museums in Sheffield. The lucky beggar.

Read on for information about identifying your specimens.

Identifying your fish

A mosaic from Pompeii (CC image by Masimo Finizio). Complete with nice pectoral fins and lateral line.

 As with so many of the other groups you could study, there's an FSC Aidgap guide for fish: Field key to the Freshwater Fishes and Lampreys of the British Isles by Alwyne Wheeler. We've got a couple of copies, or it's only £6 to buy.

An older option would be the Freshwater Biological Association's Key to the Freshwater Fishes of the British Isles by Peter S Maitland, of which we have a copy. 

I noticed there's also an online key by Alwyne Wheeler (also for freshwater fish) but it's not illustrated.

Public domain image of an oarfish (Regalecus glesne) - probably a bit big for your collection.

Mr Wheeler also wrote an Aidgap key to shore fishes of the British Isles - I don't think we have a copy in the field centre but there is one in the main library.

And you can also look at his Fishes of the British Isles and North-West Europe, which whilst being old has excellently clear diagrams (and a longish description of each species). Again, there are copies in the library.

There are keys in the Handbook of the Marine Fauna of North-West Europe by Hayward and Ryland, if you're collecting species from the sea or shore. We have a few copies of this book.

You'll want to check the names with the Natural History Museum's Dictionary of UK Species to make sure you've got the latest versions for your labels.

You might want to look at some identified specimens on FishBase but remember that you have to show you can identify using a key - it's not just about being able to match a fish to a photo, or "knowing" it's a roach because you're an experienced angler... you have to be able to explain why in your notebook.

(Return to the main fish page)

Some words about the marking scheme

You can read the official guidance on the marking scheme on Blackboard. This is the basic structure:

You can see that you're going to pick up a lot of points merely by getting organised early and doing the things the guidance asks you to do - it's not some subjective number plucked out of the air, so make sure you're following, and it you can get a high mark!

The 30% for 'the collection' means you'll be assessed on the quality and quantity of your specimens. Keep collecting throughout the year and you will get lots to put in - try not to leave everything until the last minute. People often ask how many they should submit, and I've written some thoughts here. Choose specimens that are undamaged and show the critical diagnostic features. Preserve them in a manner appropriate to the group you're collecting.

With 'identification and labelling' you can easily pick up marks just by including all the essential what / where / when / who information. Of course, accuracy of identification is very important! But if you collect a wide variety specimens you may be able to afford leaving out any you're unsure of. It's better to submit fewer specimens which are identified correctly, than loads of which half are wrong.

Presentation and display only offer 10 marks - but if you can be neat and set your specimens out taxonomically, clearly and attractively, it's surely an easy 10 marks? If your handwriting is illegible (or even if it's not) you can print your labels. I've tried to offer some advice about ways to display your specimens in the information about each taxonomic group. You can go down the traditional route or let your imagination roam.

The official guidance sets out in detail what should be in the field diary and the monograph- if you make sure you follow its advice, you will get marks accordingly! As I've said elsewhere, the field diary "only" gets 15% of the marks. But recording things in it diligently will pay dividends when you come to identify and label your specimens.

Just a small word of caution - some of the group-specific guidance on Blackboard is quite 'vintage' so be aware that some identification books recommended may have been superceded... I hope I've given you some more recent ideas on this website though.

'Who' - the final bit of essential information

The author assists a student in identifying some aquatic invertebrates

There aren't that many people out there who have the skills you'll develop while you're doing this assignment. 

And not only that, you'll be producing a record of the species that exist out there right now - and quite probably (because not that many people are doing such a thing), the species you collect and identify might not have been noted from the particular area you took them from before. Possibly ever, and at the least, often not for a long time.

So your records could be really useful - they can feed into a bigger picture about the biodiversity of this country and how it might be changing.

Around Bristol you could send your records to the Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre (BRERC) - the people there would ensure your data would be sent to specialist recording schemes (see below) and eventually added to the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway. From there it could be used for all sorts of useful research, even contributing to scientifically supported changes in government policy (yes such things have been known).

If your gathering took place further afield, you can find the appropriate records centre on this list from the National Forum for Biological Recording.

Or, you may prefer to send them directly to one of the many recording schemes for specific groups of organisms: the national Biological Records Centre has a list of them (including certainly niche but perhaps nerdily cool things like slime moulds, ticks and stoneworts). In fact, if you get really into your subject, you'll be able to find much future support from these groups.

Different recording schemes might require your records in slightly different formats - but one thing all of them will want is the What, Where, When and Who.

The Who is you - as it's likely that you will have both collected and identified your specimens. So technically, you should add your name to each of your labels.

Without the who, you've certainly got a taxonomic collection, but you haven't truly produced any biological records with a potentially wider value. However, you may say that your work is supposed to be marked anonymously, and that you don't want (and shouldn't have) your name on it. You certainly won't be marked down for not putting your name on it, and from the point of view of the university, you probably shouldn't put your name on it. There is the dilemma and I leave it with you.

'When' - the third essential thing on your label

Make sure you distinguish your records from those of these US botanists one hundred years ago: write '2015', not just '15' for the year.

 Each specimen you submit should be labelled with the date you collected it.

You want to make this as unambiguous as you can.

In Britain, we usually write the date in the form Day : Month : Year. so 1/4/2015 means the first of April.
 But Americans tend to put Month : Day : Year. 1/4/2015 meaning the fourth of January.

Some people even put the Year first (I know, how crazy can you get): 2015/4/1 - and who knows what on earth that's supposed to indicate.

So to be clear, I suggest you use this format:
the day as a number, the month in words, and the year in full:
1 Apr 2015.

Here's a hypothetical label you might stick in with a snail. Obviously yours would be beautifully neat.

You can see I've got two dates, one for the Col (collected by) date, and one for the Det (determined by) date. The date it was determined (that is, identified) isn't so important, so just gets the year.

You may rightly consider this double-date business overkill, but it is an example of what might happen if a specimen were sent away for a specialist to identify. Or perhaps if a collection were very old and a museum curator was going through it checking the identifications and updating the names.

Noting 'When' is not just about good administration. It can help you (and your marker) identify your species.

Image CC by Chrumps

This year I saw an adult Rose Chafer beetle (Cetonia aurata). The adults are only present in the summer, from May until July. The beetle's lifecycle takes two years though: the rest of the time it exists as a larva feeding underground. Therefore, if I labelled my beetle with a February date, you can be fairly sure I've either misidentified it, or that global warming must be really speeding up now.

Read on for the final element of your labels - the 'who'.

'Where' - how to record locations

Crown copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey (Digimap licence)

You do need to label your specimens with the location you found them. For one thing, it might be very useful in supporting your identification. Some species prefer particular habitats: woodland or coastal sites for example. Some species are very common in the south of England, but disappear towards Scotland. Some might be relatively new to this country and your specimen, as a record of its spread, could be of wider interest.

At a minimum you should include a 6-figure grid reference. This identifies the 100m square in which your specimen lies. This sheet by the Ordnance Survey is a good reminder of how to take a reference from a map.

 But if you want to bypass using your brain, you can use something like Grid Reference Finder which is very easy to use (right click to get the answer plotted on an OS map).

Much, much more fun to a map nerd like myself is the excellent Edina Digimap. 
You can sign up and access it through your university log-in. It allows you to zoom in ridiculously close, and even more excitingly there's a Historic Digimap (which is the nearest thing to time travel available at the moment). You can also waste hours looking at land use and geology. You also can download data for your GIS projects, so I recommend signing up.

You may be in possession of a gps or phone that uses the National Grid, and seemingly it may offer you 8 or even 10 figure grid references. But be wary - 8 figure implies a 10m square and 10 figure a 1m! It's unlikely to be so accurate. Six figures are fine (you can just knock the end ones off from each half of the result, so ST62131 77988 becomes ST621779).

(You might prefer Latitude and Longitude (gridreferencefinder.com also provides these) and you could use these instead of an OS reference if you want. There are various ways to express these co-ordinates - for example in decimal degrees, or as degrees, minutes and seconds. It would be up to you to choose: just be consistent. Decimal degrees seems to be the commonest thing. I do prefer the Ordnance Survey to be honest. But if you're a Google Maps fan, that works with lat/long. )

All those letters and numbers are pretty dry and meaningless on their own, so you should add some sort of description of where you're talking about, i.e. a place name.  You want to use something that would mean something to others, and be reasonably large scale. For example, 'Lockleaze', or 'Wetmoor Wood'.

You might also add a little description of the habitat ('on shingle', perhaps, or 'limestone grassland'). With fungi you might want to note the substrate the species was growing on ('on dead wood', 'on birch tree') and this might also be interesting to include for many invertebrates ('on cow parsley', 'on dung').

Sometimes you might have a standard label which encourages you to fill in other details like altitude - though altitude's a bit too specialist for most collections!

(for a lichen)

You could always devise your own label a bit like this, so all your labels look the same. And it does help you remember to record all the parameters.

(This amateur didn't underline her Latin names. Don't copy her slack habits.)

The herbarium label above includes a VC (Vice County) number. Victorian botanists divided the country into lots of similar-sized areas and they're still used for biological recording. If you were going to submit your records to a national recording scheme (and they'd welcome them), you'd want to include the Vice County. The Herbaria United website has an app for working this out. You don't have to use the VC on your collection though, unless you want to.


Read on for information about the 'when' for your labels.

'What' - the names on your labels

You'll have heard about Linnaeus and his binomial naming system. Today there are internationally agreed rules and regulations about how this system is used (the ICN for plants, and the ICZN for animals). Thankfully you really don't have to worry about all those. But you do want to make sure that you write your specimen names in an accepted style.

Here are some bluebells:

Image by Pluralzed (CC)

They're Hyacinthoides non-scripta. The first word (the genus or generic name) gets a capital letter. The second word (the specific name or epithet) always starts in lower case.

If you're typing your labels, you use italics, or you can underline the name. If you're writing the labels by hand, it's easiest to underline.

Names can change over time as taxonomists refine their understanding of how different species are related. So you should really check you've got the currently accepted name, especially if the book you're using to identify them is a bit old. 
 You can do this very easily on the Natural History Museum's UK Species Inventory.

Back in the dark ages I learnt that bluebells were Endymion non-scriptus. If you search for this on the Inventory, it will show you this is passe and no longer recommended, and helpfully gives you the new title too. (Annoyingly, I can't seem to unlearn the old one).

After the Latin name you'll see the authority - the person or people who named the species. There are complicated rules about how this works (you can look them up in the links at the top of the page), which is why our bluebell's authority looks so complicated. But many species will just have an L. or Linnaeus (depending if they're flora or fauna... so many rules). Whilst it is not absolutely essential, you are sure to impress your markers if you include the authority.

 So you would label your hypothetical bluebell thus:
Hyacinthoides non-scripta  (L.) Chouard ex Rothm.

If you're dealing with animals not plants, there is an extra element to include: the date when the name was published.

CC image by Trevor Harris

This lovely stag beetle is called 

 Lucanus cervus (Linnaeus, 1758).

Again, the NHM's UK Species Inventory  will give you the correct details; just copy them as you see them (including any brackets).

Yet another thing that the Species Inventory will help you do, is to arrange your specimens: you will of course want to do this taxonomically, it being a taxonomic collection. If you look in the top right corner of the species' page, you will see how it fits into the overall hierarchy. If you are collecting beetles, they will all be in the same Order (Coleoptera), so you will probably want to arrange them by Family. In this case you might want to note their family on your label. If you're collecting flowers from the Asteraceae, they're already in the same family, so you might want to note their subfamilies and organise them that way.

  Finally, you don't have to, but you may want to add an English common name to your label. With some species, we all agree on what they signify by common usage (who doesn't recognise a bluebell? though in Scotland a bluebell can refer to what is known elsewhere in Britain as a harebell). It's best to use the common names given in a book... a member of the public might call any yellow dandelion-ish plant a dandelion, but you'll know better.

Of course, lots of species - particularly the cruelly overlooked ones like mosses, lichens, beetles and earthworms, to name just a few - don't have common names (other than Moss, Lichen, Beetle and Worm). Sometimes lists of official common names have been tortuously invented. In short, if there are common names, feel free to include them. But if they don't exist or you don't like them, don't worry, leave them out.

This is your taxonomic collection, and common names don't always reflect accurately the underlying biological relationships between species. In fact sometimes they can be downright misleading (consider the starfish). They are 'folk taxonomies' and a very interesting subject in their own right (there's an interesting anthropological article here). Common names often reflect a species' cultural significance as well as its habitat, form or colour - but that's a different course entirely and I digress...

Read on for information about the 'where' for your labels.