GenBank and vouchers

[Mary Barkworth]

We are sill talking as if molecular biologists were the only group we need
to work with on the score but, as someone mentioned earlier, there is also
a major problem with papers in ecology and plant breeding (and just do not
know anything about animal breeding - perhaps there too, but ...).
Possibly the most effective approach is for each of us to persuade as many
colleagues as possible that, when reviewing proposals (including thesis
proposals) and papers, we ask for a statement as to where the voucher
specimens have been deposited - not if they have been made but where they
have been deposited.    If one is really cynical, one could ask for a
letter acknowledging receipt of the vouchers from the institution
involved.  Many herbarium can supply an accession number. Perhaps those
that do not currently add an accession number to specimens might consider
the advantages of starting to do so.   I do not know about other kinds of
collections, but I am sure that most have some sort of record number that
they can associate with an individual specimen.

I shall copy some of these comments to the place where the discussion
originated because here we are, I suspect, talking among the converted.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Whitfield [mailto:jwhitfie at COMP.UARK.EDU]
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 4:45 PM
To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
Subject: Re: GenBank and vouchers


In response to Tim Lowrey's last message (Thanks for the list of
references by the way- I had seen only 2 of them myself...):

>
>  I believe that Genbank needs to institute a major education program
about
>what voucher specimens are and why they are needed. Then they better
start
>requiring them before acceptance of sequence data. Perhaps the NSF and
>NIH(where appropriate) should require proper vouchering protocol in their
>grant requirements for the biological sciences.
>Tim Lowrey

I personally feel that JOURNALS  have a greater role to play here
than GenBank, although maybe the group at GenBank may want to take
you up on it also.   It would be great if editorial policies would
REQUIRE statements about voucher deposition locations (and also
collection locality data) in addition to requiring GenBank accession
numbers.   I think NSF already encourages such statements (along with
documentation of intention to get proper collection permits), but
usually enforcement is really up to the review panels.
        In other words, I would prefer if the original molecular
systematics paper had all the information you need in it from the
start. Unfortunately, this is even sometimes discouraged in journals
where space is at a premium.  False economy in my opinion.
--
James B. Whitfield
Associate Professor
Department of Entomology
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
tel. 501-575-2482
FAX 501-575-2452
email jwhitfie at comp.uark.edu