Some admirable collections from 2018/19 to inspire you

Please do email me or pop in to OJ16, if you have questions or fancy a chat about any of this. This year we have lab space dedicated to this assignment - which is great! - so you will usually be able to use the microscopes, books and other equipment whenever you like (weekdays, usually 8am-5ish pm).  Do bring your specimens in - naturally I am always keen to see all your interesting finds, but I can also start you off on how to identify and preserve them (or alternatively I can disappear off and leave you in peace to concentrate, if you prefer).
Good luck, have fun, start now - Rhiannon 

One of last year's excellent Hymenoptera collections

Understandably, you may like to see some previous collections for inspiration. But unsurprisingly, the best collections are usually treasured by their owners (they really are), and taken home. I know some people have even brought them back out to impress at job and placement interviews (with success). So in lieu of seeing some of the best from last year in person, here are some photos.

Below is a spider collection which was given a First. It looks really good, doesn't it. Looking good isn't everything, of course. But it does give a good first impression that this student must have put in some consistent effort with everything else. That they've preserved and presented the specimens so carefully gives you confidence they've been thorough about collecting and identifying them. The taxonomically logical arrangement helps make Order out of Chaos for anyone looking at it (the most closely related species positioned next to each other).

Envisage a great looking collection from the start, and it will help you think about what you need to do to achieve that - the number of specimens, the types of places you'll need to go, the information to collect there, the method of preservation you'll need to use, etc.

Plus, if you have a final object in mind, it can help you realise the importance of time management. Last year I saw several people who'd put in huge effort collecting and identifying some amazing lichens, but left themselves no time to pull everything together at the end. They'd not given it much thought, and their last-minute presentation lost them marks that would have added up to an even better grade. Which was frustrating and a shame. So don't let this happen to you!

(This label isn't perfect but it's pretty much there)

The spider-collector cemented their good mark with an excellent monograph (given the equivalent of 80%). Wow (you may say) - how do I get such a good mark? Well, it sounds obvious but it really is this simple: Do What You're Asked To Do. (In this example, the marker noted the monograph "provided a good introduction to the taxonomic group, including the key features of the order and families from the collection." That's what the mark scheme required, and that's what the student did - and so they got a good mark. I know. It sounds bizarrely straightforward).

Handily, this assignment provides a quite specific break-down of what you need to do well for each element. (Perhaps it's easier to see how to get a good mark than when you're just given a single sentence title for an essay). The information is there in the materials you're given by Katy, so do read them. I like to think there's a lot of help in this blog too, and I will try to keep updating it this term.

Look at the artfully displayed and resolutely unmouldy Polypody fern above, from another collection that was given a First. This student was praised for the good quality, correctly identified and suitably diverse set of specimens. But crucially, they got extra-high marks for their monograph and field diary (the marker's comment said "Good detail and evidence of planning. Location photos and plant photos useful, as are sketch diagrams. Very good detailed notes from field, and for identification"). So that's another top tip: go and buy a notebook as the first thing you do, and record what you're doing as you go along. The notebook demonstrates your learning, but is also a way of keeping everything in order - you can draw on your notes to identify specimens, complete your labels, and help you write your monograph.

Here are some other ideas for presentation. This one is a beautifully retro habitat for a well organised, First class snail collection:

This collector's notebook explicitly shows her thought processes, in using a key to identify specimens. This would be a good thing to emulate. Note the nice labelled sketches.

Also earning a first, here's only half of a student's beautifully presented collection of marine molluscs:

and some pages from her interesting and attractive notebook.

You won't go wrong with some similarly thoughtful commentary, pictures and maps, and annotated illustrations of your own. Note that this sort of thing is best created as you go along, while it's all fresh in your head. Preferably, you'd always take your notebook into the field too, just to catch important and easily forgotten thoughts provoked by wandering somewhere new and finding something interesting. One day, doubtless we will all be creating multimedia electronic notebooks with videos and animated diagrams. But in the meantime try to bear with the paper version required. (At least paper notebooks will never have hardware / software problems a decade or ten down the line: scientists are finding useful information in 100 year old field notebooks using their eyeballs, but how many people are digging information off 20 year old floppy discs?)

This collection of seaweeds was given a very good mark, but my photos of it were awful. So I'd like to show you an idea of how it used a very professional-looking way of collecting together the large number of specimens (which as you see above were beautifully preserved on separate sheets of good quality paper, with what appeared to be typed labels -or maybe it was just a retro font that looked like typing, nice anyway). They were held in a 'drop front herbarium box' like this:

from Preservation Equipment Ltd though I'm sure other options exist

So that's an idea for anyone doing seaweeds, or ferns, or Asteraceae flowers - anything where you have lots of flat sheets. It might even work for winter trees. The drop front makes it easy to get the sheets out without damaging them (and it looks better than a lever arch file, you must agree).

For more inspiration, see the other posts I've written about 'how previous students got good marks'.

For a bit of advice on how to choose what to collect, you might want to read my various thoughts on the matter, and the general encouragement here. For more information on notebooks and what to put in them, try the link in the list on the top right. --->

Some field notebooks from last year

Only part of Student T's excellent snail collection.

 I thought you might like to see some of the notebooks that were submitted last year.

They're called "field notebooks" because you're supposed to write in them in the field - so don't be precious about keeping yours all neat and tidy. Obviously you can't help bearing in mind that someone's going to look at it and mark it. But remember it's also there to aid your quest for knowledge. If you develop a habit of scribbling in it every time you pick up a specimen, you won't have to entrust your brain with all the details of where, when and what was about. The information will all be there, ready to help you with identification and labelling.

I admit it, I'm not too good at this habit myself. But it is one to cultivate. My favourite collection last year was Student T's snails. He got 13/15 for his notebook - the marker wrote "Excellent detail and diagrams - good note taking discipline". He found a lot of snails. He got very, very into it (he deserved his exceptional mark of 87% without a doubt). I admit, I found myself with Shell Envy when he brought in species I'd never seen before.

To jolly up your field notes, remember that "a picture paints a thousand words" - take a photo and annotate it. The pages above are from Student H's moss notebook. (She's just been in to collect her mosses and told me all about her ongoing moss-related placement in the Pennines. It sounds Amazing. She already has moss plans for her final year project. This is so gratifying to hear. I do hope some of you will similarly want to take your new skill further).

What's really lovely is if you can sketch a little diagram in the field (the markers love that) to give some similar context - the relative position of your seaweed on the beach, or the distinctive outline of your tree, or the way your mushroom was growing out of some rotten logs. This is detail and information that will be lost once you've spirited your specimen out of its habitat, but relatively easy to show with an annotated photo or diagram.

Another thing you could do is shown below - someone has plotted their finds on an aerial photograph. They've also given some reasons for why they tried the different locations (that they believed they would find different species living in woodlands, grasslands, and places with different types of soil).

Another important use for your notebook is to show the thinking behind your identifications. The writer of the  book below (it's snails again, you'll be thinking I'm obsessed) has carefully included
- the location and habitat
- the date
- a little sketch with measurements and whorl count
- a description of the snail's features
- and a run-through (with key couplet numbers) of a suitable snail key.
They've also got a little photo they've evidently taken through a microscope or lens.
Plus of course, they've recorded their eventual decision on the name of the creature at hand.
This is all very good.

The booklet below was kept by someone collecting spiders. It's quite interesting that they've stuck in a little aide-memoire table that reminds them to note different features like size, eye arrangement, type of web, etc. It's also useful that they mention what the spider was up to when they found it (in an orb web, wrapping up their dinner) - you really will forget this sort of thing unless you write it down in the field. I think maybe the page I've photographed is a bit thin on detail! But maybe it helps you get the idea. Overall they got a first. Considering you can get 15% on the notebook, making a bit of effort here really can make the difference to your overall mark.

Here's another appallingly out-of-focus photo from a more detailed spider notebook (apologies).  Hopefully you can see how a notebook can be both a bit messy and still contain lots of information. There's no need to spend time carefully copying stuff up neatly, or making it all mistake-free. Just record the things you find useful and interesting - the person marking it will recognise your effort.

Finally, below is a similar page from someone who did Hymenoptera (ants, wasps and bees). They've gone even fancier with coloured pencil. You might say, why not take a photo? But often you will find that a drawing is the best way to bring out the details that are important. We're used to seeing amazing photos on the internet and in nature documentaries. But taking them is actually very difficult. With a drawing you can focus attention on particular shapes, colours or patterns. Why faff about trying to photograph the claws on your beetle's tarsi (feet) if you can quickly sketch them? Don't be scared. This isn't the art class and there aren't extra points for... (whatever it is they hand out points for - I still don't really know even after being awarded a few over the years). Just try to make your drawing clear. And annotate it to make it even clearer. The markers will love it, and it'll help you absorb more information about your subject, in what I hope is turning out to be an enjoyable learning experience.

2016/17 collections: fungi

I thought it might be useful to review some of the best collections that were handed in this Spring, so you can gain inspiration from them. Although they might be a of different taxonomic group than you choose, there are plenty of tips that apply pretty generally.

A couple of the fungi collectors did extremely well, getting marks in the high 70s.

The person who marked these was very impressed with the quality of the specimens. I would suggest this means that they're not damaged (eg. by nibbling) and were at their peak of loveliness when collected, with all the useful features for identification (like the gills) being mature but not over-mature and decaying. It also implies that they were preserved properly (carefully air-dried or put in the freeze drier) and aren't deteriorating in their case.

The marker commented on the good way in which they were attached inside the cases so they could be accessed and examined. Both are in deep cases with hinged lids that can be opened. The large fungi are pinned directly to the board inside and can be easily removed. The smaller fungi in the collection in the top photo have been glued to neat cardboard backings to support them, and these are in turn pinned and so can be removed.

The collection in the lower photo was praised because the labels include the substrate on which the fungi were found - this is often a very useful clue to correct identification. In fact the good detail on the labels was noted (along with a couple of spelling mistakes!).

The upper collection included more specimens than the lower one, but some were incorrectly identified - the comments about the field diaries suggests that the markers expect to see you finding and documenting more examples than you can identify confidently, and that you won't submit all the specimens you find. So although one contained over ten more specimens than the other, they did get similar marks - it's quality, not just quantity.

Both students included specimens from the Ascomycota and Basidiomycota, but the marker noted that in one collection 'only 2 were Ascomycota, rest Basidiomycota' as though a better split might have been preferable.

Finally, both monographs were praised for drawing on the specimens in the collections to illustrate their points. And the field diaries also got good marks (for good detail, drawings and in situ photos) but suspicions were raised over how much had been completed actually in the field. This is something that's repeated so many times that I know it'll help your mark if you get into the habit of scribbling stuff down when you're out collecting.

It made me smile to read on one of the mark sheets the rarely uttered line "I particularly liked the Schizophyllum commune." You will know if you are turning into a fungi nerd if you take a look at this species and find yourself agreeing. I certainly loved this strange and weird specimen when the student brought it in for freeze-drying.

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.