collection numbers

[JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE]

>    I completely disagree with you statement:
>
>  Besides, one can easily solve that problem by including
>  the date in the number. Give the plant the collection
>  number "23059924" meaning it is the 24th specimen you
>  collected on 23 May 1999. Totally unambiguous, unless you
>  are in botany for over 100 years.
>
>     This is about the worst possible use of collection numbers.

Please reread my posting yesterday in its entirety. I
was not suggesting this as an alternative to the usual
sequential numbering system. I was suggesting this as
an alternative to no numbers at all, in the case of
a collector too lazy to use a proper notebook. I use
a sequential numbering system myself.

> Sorry to say that this way is NOT totally
> unambiguous since different parts
>  of the world tend to write the date differently.

This is irrelevant if we are talking about a single
collector. If that collector is consistent, yes,
the system is unambiguous.

May the Ficus be with you!

Joe Skywalker

--
Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere