Collection cataloguing/indexing systems??

[Hollie Bird]

Hello everyone

 

Making use of the last few months of my maternity and the upcoming lock down I'm planning on cataloguing my small fossil collection at some point after Christmas. 

I would love to know how other people number or index them? 

Hoping for some really nerdy answers :-D

 

Hollie

[FranzBernhard]

You may try this topic:

Personal opinions:

- Simple numbers* are enough for a small collection and even for an intermediate one.

- Put a number on the specimen (small, in a hidden spot. You can make it easy removable or nearly permanent, as you like).

- Make a paper label with the most important information (that are locality and formation, collecting date etc. and number, of course).

- Put every detail in an excel spreadsheet. Excel is installed nearly everywhere and excel data can be easily exported into other formats, if necessary.

- Edit: Kane´s suggestion is a very good one! Especially if you like photographing. I don´t do it, because I don´t like photographing.

- Have fun!

Franz Bernhard

* Even some(??) museums use simple numbers, with >100,000 specimens. I know certainly at least of one museum doing that.

 

[Kane]

For added utility, you can also include thumbnail images of each specimen to be included in the spreadsheet. Visual identification can sometimes make for quicker retrieval if, say, you have multiple examples of a brachiopod but are seeking a particular one.

[Hollie Bird]

Thanks for the info it is much appreciated :-) 

 

 

[Thomas.Dodson]

The way people catalogue collections vary a lot depending on personal preference and what you want to get out of it. Hopefully lots of people will share their system and you can decide what works best for your collection.

 

I use a system that prioritizes locality data over individual specimen numbers. It's sort of a cheat since I don't want to individually label/separate thousands of small specimens into specific containers. The process goes something like this.

 

Small specimens go into stackable trays labeled and assigned with site locality. Individual compartments in the tray are labeled with species name (or whatever identification you have reached). The idea here is that whole trays are less likely to get mixed up than random specimens scattered across shelves. Species can be re-identified, sites cannot. Site localities and all pertinent information are also put into a excel database and given a unique number. The numbering system can be your own as long as it makes sense. I mainly collect in the States so I use a state prefix with a sequential number based on the site. Ex. ND#026 will be the 26th site that fossils were collected from in North Dakota. If your collection is primarily bought fossils this can be changed to a lot of things, it doesn't matter. What matters is keeping track of it all and it helps to stay consistent. It makes sorting your database easy. Site code data is coupled in the database with a site name, specific information, the State, County, GPS coordinates, formation, age, age in number, formation, notes, collecting status (like if the site is no longer exposed, land changed hands, etc.) and site picture. 

 

Larger specimens/slabs/etc. that don't fit in stackable trays get numbered on the actual specimen. A layer of white acrylic paint in a inconspicuous spot, numbered with the site code in archival ink, and coated with paraloid so it doesn't smudge. These are naturally labeled with site data and identification data and are still put in the database. The nice thing about numbering is you can be a lot more random in your displays and always backtrack to find the specimen if labels get lost.

 

Regarding the database portion, more information is better. At the very least you want the identification, site code and locality information, formation, age in number as well as Age (or period, epoch, or however close you've gotten for the specimen). I also include collection dates, notes for each specimen such as identification source or whatever else might be relevant, a link to a picture of the specimen (or specimens if there are lots of the individual species from that site) and a display status (basically this says if the specimen is on display or boxed in storage). I usually sort individual entries by the site code but including all this information means you can also sort by things like age if you're curious how your collection looks from that perspective.

 

A fragmentary visual example of spreadsheet fields for species ID, site code, age, and specimen county to help visualize.

 

A basic site label accompanying site trays. Infinitely customizable but I like to keep it short since the database has the more detailed information.

 

 

 

[Coco]

Hi,

 

My labeling and ranking is similar to Franz’s.

I first put an order number (order in which I register), then I assign a letter code for the site (for example DLF for Doué-La-Fontaine in my region), then I put the department number when it is a French sample, otherwise I write the code to car plates for a foreign country. And my code ends up in CC because it’s the initials of my name. On the same label I indicate below the age, the provenance and the French department or the country when it comes from abroad.

 

Then I have a large Excel file with many columns that lists the number of the sample, its Latin name, its family, its place of discovery, its age/ formation/ floor, its mode of acquisition and a whole bunch of information, GPS coordinates when I have them (I wish I had such devices 20 or 30 years ago !).

 

Coco

[Caverat]

4 hours ago, Hollie Bird said:

Hello everyone

 

Making use of the last few months of my maternity and the upcoming lock down I'm planning on cataloguing my small fossil collection at some point after Christmas. 

I would love to know how other people number or index them? 

Hoping for some really nerdy answers :-D

 

Hollie

Hollie - Check out Trilobase on the internet. Even if it doesn't suit your needs, you can see the things it tracks. As to labeling, I usually paint a very small rectangle of white paint and then use india ink to write a catalog number to associate it with the data you record. I do photos because you can share on the internet and do close-ups for specific details.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Caverat
Mis-spelling

[LabRatKing]

I use the old school system. Each specimen gets a small rectangle of white enamel paint and then an alpha numeric number.

 

small stuff in trays, big stuff wherever it fits.

 

I hate spreadsheets, so I use an old US Navy logbook to record the numbers.

 

I store and display by locality.

 

At work, everything is labeled nearly identical to what @Thomas.Dodson described, though all digital inventory is backed up with archival hard copies because IT cannot be trusted!

[Hollie Bird]

These are great ideas. 

I've been meaning to organise the collection for a while. Everything is just sitting in boxes while house refurbishments were ongoing. 

I think it's also nice to have another look at old specimens again. We spend so much time collecting in the field or purchasing fossils then away they go into some box for years unappreciated. 

[Sjfriend]

My simple method for my small collection is each piece gets number on the specimen by location/state (1st trilobite from wheeler shale in Utah, UTws.001) then a 3x5 card with information (location, formation, age, species name when known, more info that suits the needs of the piece)

 

Not grand but works

[erose]

Whatever system you use or create remember the most important piece of information is the location. Fossils without context are just cool rocks at best. 
 

 

[Notidanodon]

What would you guys recommend for the smaller and very numerous fossils, say striatolamia striata from herne bay, I find probably 40 good condition ones a trip, the rest I give away, should I just label a box in general, a second question is, how would you attach a number without it being conspicuous  on something small like a shark tooth

[erose]

1 hour ago, will stevenson said:

What would you guys recommend for the smaller and very numerous fossils, say striatolamia striata from herne bay, I find probably 40 good condition ones a trip, the rest I give away, should I just label a box in general, a second question is, how would you attach a number without it being conspicuous  on something small like a shark tooth

Yeah you could go crazy trying to label ever single specimen. And for some types of fossils a selection of examples seems more appropriate. I will put them together in one container and after the field number* add a quantity. Example KTX1209 (x6)

 

* my collection is pretty large. I use what I call a field code and then a catalog number. Field codes tell me the age and the state it was collected in with a simple sequential number. Example KTX1209 (x6) = six examples of the 1209th fossil found in the Cretaceous of Texas.  My catalog is organized by state and age and uses simple sequential numbers. The catalog entry has location, taxonomic, descriptive info but it also may include or refer to more than one field code, especially if the specimens are virtually identical. This has made my collection much more manageable.

[LabRatKing]

1 hour ago, will stevenson said:

What would you guys recommend for the smaller and very numerous fossils, say striatolamia striata from herne bay, I find probably 40 good condition ones a trip, the rest I give away, should I just label a box in general, a second question is, how would you attach a number without it being conspicuous  on something small like a shark tooth

Depends on how small. Anything around the 10mm mark, from the same site, I put in small jars and vials together, even if different species. a slip of paper in the container, or an alpha numeric on the jar links it to my log book. These days, if I already have a high quality specimen from the site of a species, I don't bother with it...it is getting to the point I'd have to reinforce the floor joists in my house otherwise

[erose]

6 hours ago, will stevenson said:

What would you guys recommend for the smaller and very numerous fossils, say striatolamia striata from herne bay, I find probably 40 good condition ones a trip, the rest I give away, should I just label a box in general, a second question is, how would you attach a number without it being conspicuous  on something small like a shark tooth

Unless you are up for writing numbers on specimens under a microscope (and some are) then you just have to number the container and do your upmost best to never let the specimen and container be parted.  What container is your choice. I have a mix of small round gem jars, square magnifier boxes, small ziplocks and small clear plastic divided boxes.  My current favorites are these from the Container Store. They are sold as cufflink organizers.  How many of you still own cufflinks? 110 x 255 x20mm

[Notidanodon]

thanks @erose and @LabRatKing, those are some great ideas, i have some gem jars lying around so ill get going on it

[LabRatKing]

1 hour ago, erose said:

Unless you are up for writing numbers on specimens under a microscope (and some are) then you just have to number the container and do your upmost best to never let the specimen and container be parted.  What container is your choice. I have a mix of small round gem jars, square magnifier boxes, small ziplocks and small clear plastic divided boxes.  My current favorites are these from the Container Store. They are sold as cufflink organizers.  How many of you still own cufflinks? 110 x 255 x20mm

Those gem display cases/cell culture plates are great for the tiny stuff! 
 

for really tiny stuff I use a bit of PVA glue(because it’s removable with water if need be) to keep them on a card or foam backing at the lab.

[FossilNerd]

On 12/18/2020 at 12:54 PM, FranzBernhard said:

 

You may try this topic:

 

 

 

I won’t go through my whole labeling process again as it is in the thread mentioned above, but I do put a label in my containers now instead of writing on the container itself.

 

12 hours ago, will stevenson said:

What would you guys recommend for the smaller and very numerous fossils, say striatolamia striata from herne bay, I find probably 40 good condition ones a trip, the rest I give away, should I just label a box in general, a second question is, how would you attach a number without it being conspicuous  on something small like a shark tooth

I’m one of the crazy ones who labels each and every fossil... Yes, even something like striatolamia striata. 
 

It’s time consuming, but I do it because each one is different in its own way. One may have an attached epibiont, while another does not, or one may have a pathology of some kind.

 

I guess I’m afraid that I might miss out on a cool feature, or something scientifically important by lumping them together. 

[FranzBernhard]

5 hours ago, LabRatKing said:

for really tiny stuff I use a bit of PVA glue(because it’s removable with water if need be) to keep them on a card or foam backing at the lab.

Size of box is 5x5 cm.

I am using some kind of putty, but it can be troublesome, releasing some oil with time or getting crumbly etc. Water-soluble glue is better.

Franz Bernhard

[Wrangellian]

^ Wow! That's one way of doing it. I just hope that whatever adhesive you use it can be removed if necessary, without damaging the fossil. Even water can damage some fossils (like some of my local ones).

For small stuff I just use the small fold-up boxes, with the cat. number stuck on the box, and try my best to not let the fossils fall out get mixed up, as erose says. Occasionally I'll use small ziplocs - more of them can be packed into a smaller space than the boxes can, but the boxes display better, I think.

 

One thing I want to point out is, be careful about mixing up your age dates and your stages, or relying on one over the other. If you've got an accurate location and formation, or member/level within that formation, you're good, but if for instance you receive a bought fossil, and the label only states "Carboniferous, 310 million years old", you might deduce that this must mean Middle Pennsylvanian, but maybe the dates have been adjusted and it actually came from a Late (Upper) Penn formation. (I don't know if that date has actually changed in that direction - just a possible example). It's probably best to record just the formation and other strat info, and leave off any mention of the numerical date, as these are always being recalibrated, but the relative stratigraphy is going to stay the same (I think). The formation might even be divided or reassigned to the next stage up or down, which is why the location and level are important.

I mention this because I've got fossils with this sort of incomplete or ambiguous info. I used to make assumptions and then realized I could not be sure.

[LabRatKing]

3 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

^ Wow! That's one way of doing it. I just hope that whatever adhesive you use it can be removed if necessary, without damaging the fossil. Even water can damage some fossils (like some of my local ones).

For small stuff I just use the small fold-up boxes, with the cat. number stuck on the box, and try my best to not let the fossils fall out get mixed up, as erose says. Occasionally I'll use small ziplocs - more of them can be packed into a smaller space than the boxes can, but the boxes display better, I think.

 

One thing I want to point out is, be careful about mixing up your age dates and your stages, or relying on one over the other. If you've got an accurate location and formation, or member/level within that formation, you're good, but if for instance you receive a bought fossil, and the label only states "Carboniferous, 310 million years old", you might deduce that this must mean Middle Pennsylvanian, but maybe the dates have been adjusted and it actually came from a Late (Upper) Penn formation. (I don't know if that date has actually changed in that direction - just a possible example). It's probably best to record just the formation and other strat info, and leave off any mention of the numerical date, as these are always being recalibrated, but the relative stratigraphy is going to stay the same (I think). The formation might even be divided or reassigned to the next stage up or down, which is why the location and level are important.

I mention this because I've got fossils with this sort of incomplete or ambiguous info. I used to make assumptions and then realized I could not be sure.

For small specimens easily damaged by water or really fragile, I treat them with paraloid or the like OR I just keep them in small glass vials with screw tops filled with mineral oil. Added bonus- the transparent mineral oil acts as a magnifying lense in the vial!

[Wrangellian]

Interesting... I would not have thought to submerge delicate specimens in anything!

[Thomas.Dodson]

21 hours ago, FranzBernhard said:

Size of box is 5x5 cm.

I am using some kind of putty, but it can be troublesome, releasing some oil with time or getting crumbly etc. Water-soluble glue is better.

Franz Bernhard

Have you tried mineral tack made for rock specimens? It's supposed to not have these problems. I had trouble with ordinary putty like you mentioned but so far (5 years?) the mineral tack I purchased doesn't dry, isn't oily, and is easily removed. As others mentioned removable glue works well too.

 

On the subject of fragile specimens I usually do things like @LabRatKing. I feel like it beats not treating them although I have had a very small number of poorly attached specimens (scales on Niobrara chalk) separate in the paraloid.

[FranzBernhard]

1 hour ago, Thomas.Dodson said:

Have you tried mineral tack made for rock specimens?

Yes, I am already using supposed oil-free mineral tack some friends are using for their micromounts. Still releases some minor amounts of oil over the years (you can see a dark spot on the specimen after removing the tack after several years). But it has not crumbled over more then 10 years. And it is easily removable, indeed.

Had a very severe case of oily and crumbling tack on some micro mineral specimens from abroad. Maybe white, ordinary putty was used. A real nightmare.

Franz Bernhard

[LabRatKing]

12 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

Interesting... I would not have thought to submerge delicate specimens in anything!

This works well for me and the viscosity of mineral oil acts as padding. It also does a fair job of keeping humidity out too.