Jump to content

Labels on fossils - pros and cons; show and tell


Wrangellian

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure which category this would fit best in, so I'll put it here.

@Bobby Rico in another thread got me thinking about labels directly on specimens, what with the appeal of old labels on specimens from historic collections and other considerations. I figured it couldn't hurt to attach labels directly onto some specimens (with more than the catalogue number that I put on all of my specimens) so that whoever ends up with them after I part with them, whether museum or private collector, would actually have to put some effort into scraping off the label to lose the provenance info! I have included the usual information: the name (if I know it), the geologic age, formation, location, date found, my initials, and the cat# even though it is duplicated elsewhere on the rock. More detailed info for each specimen can be found in my notebook, though that mainly consists of a more exact location.

I had already done one label a few years back for another large specimen similar to this one which was displayed publicly at a fossil event. I decided to do a few more. So I dug out my old typewriter and made some labels for my largest self-found local pieces. Here is one result. This specimen has a handy flat fracture face to put the label on, as did the earlier one.

I did find the old typewriter difficult to use. I've been spoiled by the easy-touch computer keyboard, and the ease of hitting 'backspace' to correct mistakes! But maybe my typewriter could use a new ribbon too, as it requires a heavy punch or a double punch to get more than a faint letter. The number of times I had to start over again was enough to send ya. (I don't really want to use whiteout on the labels.)

The only other thing I don't like is the size of the type/spacing is a bit big. Maybe other typewriters have smaller fonts which would enable smaller labels. Or maybe I should just give in and use the computer printer to make my labels... Not sure if the printer ink will run when the label gets wet, though.

Also I tried a couple different types of glue and find that the old white glue seems to work better than the Acryloid, though I haven't yet determined how much water is best to dilute it with. The water helps to soften the paper somewhat so that it conforms to the unevenness of the rock surface. But it's a bit messy, and it can be difficult to hold the heavy rock in such a position as to keep the label horizontal so the glue doesn't run off in one direction, while dabbing it off with TP, until it dries enough to put it down and let it continue drying.

Anyway I like the results for the most part. Does anyone else do this with any of their pieces, and what method do they use, or do they think it marrs the look of the specimen? I guess it would depend on the piece. (I would generally put the label on the back/bottom so that it is not seen when displayed. It is more about keeping the info with the specimen. A loose label or notebook can easily be separated from the specimen or lost altogether.) But it is a bit of work which may not really be worth it in the end. I dunno. Of course not all specimens will accommodate a label easily or at all. I will only do this with the larger ones that aren't earmarked for immediate donation to science/museum but maybe it wouldn't hurt to attach labels on some of those also? I think the labels will be removable with acetone, if necessary, whether attached with white glue or Paraloid/Acryloid.

 

 

Tz1467 label (1).jpg

Tz1467 label (2).jpg

Edited by Wrangellian
  • I found this Informative 2
  • Enjoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have put very few on some "rock" specimens (in use as paperweight) in the quite distant past just for fun:

Labels.thumb.jpg.0c0bca4a2e85245f6c4befa521ad8ecb.jpg

Printed with laser printer on normal paper, glued with a transparent, water soluble multi-purpose glue of a common bird brand onto the "rock" about 12 years ago.

Font size is somewhat between 4 and 5 point, I think.

 

In mindat(?), but maybe also here on TFF, was a discussion about "lifesaver labels", with the absolute minimum info to keep a specimen "useful" to science. The really most important info is location, location, location (did I already mention location :D?) as detailed as possible. All other things are very nice to have, but essentially luxury. Very precise location is even more important for fossils, sometimes formation is by for not enough, sometimes it needs to be specific to the bed, to be really and in depth useful.

 

Franz Bernhard

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, those labels look good and they do contain more info than mine... of course they're done on computer and probably smaller font.

I missed the discussion on lifesaver labels. Is that how they're referring to these?

Yes, normally I would include a location as precisely as possible, but on a label such as these, "pile about 100m downhill to the West of Main Lower Pile" could take up a fair bit of space, and not make much sense to another person unless they had a copy of my map to refer to, then we're back to the original problem of having the real information in another place not attached to the specimen. Also, those piles no longer exist, and anyway they were not exactly in their original location of excavation. I have somewhat of an idea of where each one was dug up, but not certain. But I could record those locations, or figure out their lat/long positions and use those?

 

Edited by Wrangellian
addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

But I could record those locations, or figure out their lat/long positions and use those?

This is a good idea, using coordinates or "permanent" geographic points as reference for such heaps. I am using often mountain tops or churches as "permanent geographic points" for reference. But the locations given that way are still quite imprecise...

One of the "best" geographic landmark in old descriptions over here is "lumbering" (= Holzschlag)...:heartylaugh:.

Franz Bernhard

Edited by FranzBernhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, FranzBernhard said:

One of the "best" geographic landmark in old descriptions over here is "lumbering" (= Holzschlag)

A forest or a cut forest was used as a geographical description?

 

I normally have only a site number and date on my fossil pieces. In my notebook the numbered sites have gps coordinates (sometimes) and locations relative to roads, towns, mountains and drainages using crude polar coordinates.
 

Edited by DPS Ammonite

My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned.   

See my Arizona Paleontology Guide    link  The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, FranzBernhard said:

This is a good idea, using coordinates or "permanent" geographic points as reference for such heaps. I am using often mountain tops or churches as "permanent geographic points" for reference. But the locations given that way are still quite imprecise...

One of the "best" geographic landmark in old descriptions over here is "lumbering" (= Holzschlag)...:heartylaugh:.

Franz Bernhard

What is lumbering... a particular parcel of land used for lumber?

About my mountain, if worse came to worst and everything about my specimens was lost except for the attached label, I think any researcher over here who knows the Nanaimo Group/Haslam Fm localities will find out by the date I recorded that 'Mt Tzuhalem' is actually a limited area on the north slope of the mountain, so the location of origin could be narrowed down to that area. At least I hope so. It is possible that more areas could be exposed in future (I hope not, or that could mean the whole mountain could end up covered in housing developments!).  But my date should constrain it to the well-known exposures that exist now.

I'll think about using lat/long coordinates. I'm not sure whether to use the location of the piles or where I think the piles were dug out of. Also, should I use the old lat/long system or the new decimal system?

I should get a laser printer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's at least partially a matter of taste, I suppose, although I can understand the concern about losing the provenance of a sample, but I prefer to just give each one a small unobtrusive sticker with a number on it referring to my data bank, which is not only virtual, but also printed out and stored in file folders.

 

Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger

http://www.steinkern.de/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said:

...

I normally have only a site number and date on my fossil pieces. In my notebook the numbered sites have gps coordinates (sometimes) and locations relative to roads, towns, mountains and drainages using crude polar coordinates.

You put the site number and the date on your specimens... What happens if you find multiple fossils on the same day at the same site - do they all get the same number?

 

14 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

It's at least partially a matter of taste, I suppose, although I can understand the concern about losing the provenance of a sample, but I prefer to just give each one a small unobtrusive sticker with a number on it referring to my data bank, which is not only virtual, but also printed out and stored in file folders.

Yes, all of my fossils have this too... minus the databank (just the physical notebook. I suppose the redundancy would be safer but it's a lot of work! But then so is labeling). So far I'm only considering putting labels on the largest specimens that can accommodate one, ie. those with matrix... I don't know if I'd want to plaster one onto the surface of an ammonite for example.

At this point I have no idea what will happen to my collection when I'm gone. I'm not 'old' yet but you never know what could happen. The most likely thing is that everything will be handed over to one of the institutions/researchers and they will have to sort it out, but if something should happen to me before then, the notebook could easily be separated from the specimens. With affixed labels, when the fossil changes hands, the info automatically does too.

Edited by Wrangellian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

but if something should happen to me before then, the notebook could easily be separated from the specimens.

Why not just make a clear reference to its existence and location in your testament (when you get around to making one up of course)?

 

Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger

http://www.steinkern.de/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the necessity or benefits of having the labels directly glued to the specimens depends on whether digital information will withstand the test of time.

 

The vast majority of specimens I have are purchased so they usually lack the very fine details in provenance anyway, although some specimens I have received full GPS coordinates which I've saved, written down, and made backups.

 

I would have probably said that it probably isn't a huge deal to have every specimen have labels directly attached to the specimen and just have ID or pictures to cross-reference back to notes. But . . . we just had an incident where an old collection having the provenance separate from the specimens didn't work out here. There's no guarantee that small specimens won't accidentally end up in a box labeled differently.

I've mostly gone with relying on both digital (power point and word) and physical notes detailing when the specimens were purchased and any fine details like GPS coordinates, repairs/resto, what was used to stabilize the specimen, original date of being found, any documents on exportation. Any specimens that were purchased together and come from the same dig site or formation with another specimens is also mentioned.

 

Also, have a USB flash drive or 2 to save all your stuff in.

 

Generally, this is what I do when I buy a fossil.

 

First step: Save all raw photos provided by original owner, screenshot the listing/page and any messages/emails that detail provenance or information with dates. I also save or screenshot any pieces that I haven't bought but came from the same location or part of the same lot. I particularly do this with stuff from Niger and unusual places in Morocco.

 

Second step: Give it a mundane temporary ID and compile all the images and screenshots together in a single folder. Example, D64 for a Ceratosaurus tooth. Dinosaurs are just D, Crocodylomorphs C, all other Reptiles as R, Mammals are M, etc. These IDs are more or less to make it easier to sort through specimens.

 

Recently I've sorted out a lot of the original photos and screenshots into their respective groups, but still have the master folder that I dump everything in. Having over 2,500 images in one folder was kind of messy. I haven't really gotten around to everything yet as shown by the empty fish and shark folders.

 

1005900816_FossilID4.jpg.2fa35d5243740e40b5e1ad13a845bd2b.jpg

 

Third step: Add specimens to a power point that is the same as my physical notes except that the power point has the image of the specimen. I also keep this power point on my phone as well to quickly pull it up. This is usually where I give the specimens a proper ID number. It starts with TYI, followed by 3 digit country of origin, then 8 digit number via random number generator. I really don't know how to go about multiple small specimens from one location like fish scales and shark teeth. Unlike a dinosaurs teeth or big matrix pieces that have distinct flaws or unique characteristics, a lot of them, like 40-50 Orthacanthus teeth look the same.

 

This is currently just for my personal reference, but I also recently made a folder that I just named "Z Big List" for no particular reason that just dumps a single image of the specimen in my current possession with the ID number only so I don't make any dupes if that ever happens by sheer chance. Eventually, I will try having better photographs for each specimens that don't have my hand in it. I'm mostly doing this little at a time as I upload a moving video and pictures of different angles to Instagram. Uploading a video of your specimens somewhere and rotating them around is probably a good idea. The "Z Pictures" is the similar to this, but includes the video and other angles of the specimen and includes the more simple ID number as well for cross-reference.

 

120323678_FossilID2.jpg.0480c87972d4195ee9669ae38f9cf147.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ludwigia said:

(when you get around to making one up of course)?

There's the rub.... And I have not decided where it all should go - that is still up in the air.

I should clarify that I plan to keep these big 'showpieces' longer than a lot of the smaller stuff. It will be tough for me to let go of them as they were big finds for me and I remember the circumstances of each one. I might donate most of the smaller stuff sooner rather than later, and so long as I am doing so myself the info will go with them no problem. At least they have their cat#s and the notebook, and the bought stuff has labels (maybe I will attach labels to some of those too). But these larger chunks, if I keep them my whole life and then check out suddenly without having disposed of them (as so often happens), wherever they go they will have their info with them even if the notebook disappears.

Edited by Wrangellian
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kikokuryu said:

I guess the necessity or benefits of having the labels directly glued to the specimens depends on whether digital information will withstand the test of time.

That's a good question. I would never have everything ONLY in digital format. Computers and external drives crash unpredictably, and the files would probably be even harder for anyone to find in my system than my physical notebook anyway, in my absence. You might point out that the notebook could get lost or damaged in a flood or fire, but it never leaves this room and if there is a flood/fire here, the fossils will be affected likewise!

I appreciate the work you put into this post and I do like to see how other people do it, but we all have our own system of cataloguing and these have been discussed elsewhere. My main intent here was to show how we add a label to a specimen, if we do, and perhaps debate the ins and outs of that. The main thing is that we have the data with each fossil, rather than separate from it. For smaller specimens of course you can't fit a detailed label on them so I just put the catalogue number on those with the info in the notebook or on a label that sits with it in a box or ziploc bag. They're pretty safe and well-organized in their drawers currently so I'm not too worried about them becoming separated from their info. It's the best I can do, and when I pop off or they leave my possession they will have their info with them and it will be the next owner's responsibility to keep it straight. (Actually I have not entered any of my bought fossils into the notebook, that is only for local/self-collected fossils, for now, but they all have their own labels. Maybe I will make a book for them also but so far the labels are working fine to record the information I have, which in a lot of cases is not very extensive anyway - as you say, many of them didn't come with fine details of provenance.)

 

Will it suffice to say that it doesn't hurt to have labels attached directly to specimens, not necessarily as an alternative to a notebook/database but in addition to one? That is unless you just don't like the look of a label stuck on a specimen...

 

Edited by Wrangellian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DPS Ammonite said:

A forest or a cut forest was used as a geographical description?

Yes, but not once, of course :whistle:.

 

2 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

What is lumbering... a particular parcel of land used for lumber?

Yes, an area of recently cut forest (it was the internet translation of the German term "Holzschlag").

 

Franz Bernhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

Will it suffice to say that it doesn't hurt to have labels attached directly to specimens, not necessarily as an alternative to a notebook/database but in addition to one? That is unless you just don't like the look of a label stuck on a specimen...

For most specimen, you will find a hidden spot for at least a "lifesaver" label. Very small laser print on archival paper, glued best with - I don´t know - to the specimen.

Does not work for very small specimens, of course.

For very small, important specimen, you may use a micromount box (1 inch or 2 cm - cubes)? Biggest problem, as always, is to glue the specimen to the substrate. Its always a trade-off between durability and reversibility. 

Franz Bernhard

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, FranzBernhard said:

Yes, an area of recently cut forest (it was the internet translation of the German term "Holzschlag").

I never thought to look that one up - you gave me the translation, I thought ;)

I have used similar 'landmarks' to describe fossil locations. Since then I have been trying to record the GPS coordinates for everything but I may have overlooked some or they have been harder to pinpoint in Google Maps than I thought they would be...

 

18 minutes ago, FranzBernhard said:

For most specimen, you will find a hidden spot for at least a "lifesaver" label. Very small laser print on archival paper, glued best with - I don´t know - to the specimen.

Does not work for very small specimens, of course.

For very small, important specimen, you may use a micromount box (1 inch or 2 cm - cubes)? Biggest problem, as always, is to glue the specimen to the substrate. Its always a trade-off between durability and reversibility. 

Franz Bernhard

I'm not sure I would ever want to glue any of my specimens to anything - if they are sturdy enough (99.9% of them) they will go into a small box with soft substrate, or a small ziploc bag, with the info label.

It will take some time for me to go through my collection and decide what gets a permanent attached label with the data (esp. location as you say), and actually make them and attach them. I'm sure I could put a small computer-printed label on most of them, but where to draw the line I'm not sure. I will start with the most significant ones that I'm more likely to keep long-term.

I have made some sticky labels with handwritten info for a few of my rock slices, similar to yours - they are easy to do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

GPS coordinates

Have you cross-checked them with a map? Just had a discussion yesterday about this - old GPS equipment often gave quite misleading results. Nowadays it seems to be better. But I don´t use GPS, just tried it some decades ago, and they missed the spot very well...:D.

Franz Bernhard

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, FranzBernhard said:

Have you cross-checked them with a map? Just had a discussion yesterday about this - old GPS equipment often gave quite misleading results. Nowadays it seems to be better. But I don´t use GPS, just tried it some decades ago, and they missed the spot very well...:D.

Franz Bernhard

Well not necessarily GPS, I usually just go to Google Maps. I hope that data is accurate...

  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FranzBernhard said:

For very small, important specimen, you may use a micromount box (1 inch or 2 cm - cubes)? Biggest problem, as always, is to glue the specimen to the substrate. Its always a trade-off between durability and reversibility.

I have not put a lot of fossils in boxes, for several years I focus more on the organization of my current shells. For what fits in the microassembly boxes I "block" the shell with small squares that I cut out in cotton discs to remove makeup. At the bottom of the box I put my label visible from the outside, then I put as many layers of cotton as necessary so that the shell is stuck in the box without being crushed. With the lid, it holds itself and doesn’t damage the shells.
 
For smaller shells, I use empty capsules of different sizes that can be bought on the net. I just put a small label inside each capsule, I place all my samples from one single species in capsules in a larger box, with inside the label of each sample at its normal size.
 
On my photo I don’t have the labels in the capsules and the big box yet because it is being catalogued, they are not yet printed. Pic done rapidly before get out...
 
20210914_145644.thumb.jpg.134f0682274b4ba3da5758d84673d593.jpg
 
Coco
Edited by Coco
  • I found this Informative 1
  • Enjoyed 3

----------------------
OUTIL POUR MESURER VOS FOSSILES : ici

Ma bibliothèque PDF 1 (Poissons et sélaciens récents & fossiles) : ici
Ma bibliothèque PDF 2 (Animaux vivants - sans poissons ni sélaciens) : ici
Mâchoires sélaciennes récentes : ici
Hétérodontiques et sélaciens : ici
Oeufs sélaciens récents : ici
Otolithes de poissons récents ! ici

Un Greg...

Badges-IPFOTH.jpg.f4a8635cda47a3cc506743a8aabce700.jpg Badges-MOTM.jpg.461001e1a9db5dc29ca1c07a041a1a86.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your new labels look really good. Can’t see any harm in attaching a label directly to a fossil. As you said probably not on the display side. I liked to collect fossil from old collections  especially ammonite. I have quite few with labels attached  circa 1950s, I feel I could remove them if I needed to. 
 

cheers Bobby 

  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

You put the site number and the date on your specimens... What happens if you find multiple fossils on the same day at the same site - do they all get the same number?

All fossil collected at the same locality regardless of the collection date get the same site number. Someday I might put a unique number on a fossil that corresponds to a catalogue entry. For now, my fossils are mostly organized in mineral boxes by formation and then general type. Example: Naco Fm. corals.

 

In addition to a notebook full of locality info, I copy topo maps with the localities and numbers pointed out. I have too many site numbers to remember.

 

 

My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned.   

See my Arizona Paleontology Guide    link  The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding GPS coordinates, there are some pitfalls in relying solely on that to describe location. The short is that we'd like to think the earth is a perfect sphere, but it isn't. It's an imperfect ellipsoid. Also, GPS coordinates are a 2 dimensional construct of a 3 dimensional sphere. Its mathematically impossible to depict a sphere as a 2 dimensional surface (I believe Gauss proved that). The result is that there are various models to approximate the earth's shape. Probably the most common is WGS 84, which is what Google Maps uses. If you use a handheld GPS device, you should note what datum or model it uses if you are using its readings. Without that key piece of information, your coordinates could be very far off. The advantage of WGS 84 is that its an ok approximation for the whole earth. It is nowhere near the most accurate. I live in California, and surveys are done based on California state plane, which are divided into zones, depending on where in the state you live. This is based on the NAD 83 datum, which is very accurate for each zone, but becomes more severely distorted the farther you are from the zone. 

 

Lastly, GPS devices will always have inherent error, which varies wildly based on many factors such as if you're using a cell phone vs. survey grade GPS, number of GPS satellites available, weather conditions, unobstructed line of sight to the satellite, proximity to cell phone towers, availability of real time kinematic technology, etc. The worst part is that due to the number of variables, its difficult to even estimate your error. My approach is that GPS coordinates are useful, but they should always be backed up with a simple description of the location as well, using local landmarks and observations.

 

In summary, GPS coordinates are good, only as long as you note how you obtained them (using a GPS device using ___ datum, or using Google maps and WGS 84 to estimate where you were). Knowing all of these limitations, a detailed description of the location should also be included, referencing landmarks so that one can verify the coordinates.   

Edited by Crusty_Crab
  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Coco said:
I have not put a lot of fossils in boxes, for several years I focus more on the organization of my current shells. For what fits in the microassembly boxes I "block" the shell with small squares that I cut out in cotton discs to remove makeup. At the bottom of the box I put my label visible from the outside, then I put as many layers of cotton as necessary so that the shell is stuck in the box without being crushed. With the lid, it holds itself and doesn’t damage the shells.
 
For smaller shells, I use empty capsules of different sizes that can be bought on the net. I just put a small label inside each capsule, I place all my samples from one single species in capsules in a larger box, with inside the label of each sample at its normal size.
 
On my photo I don’t have the labels in the capsules and the big box yet because it is being catalogued, they are not yet printed. Pic done rapidly before get out...
 
20210914_145644.thumb.jpg.134f0682274b4ba3da5758d84673d593.jpg
 
Coco

That's pretty neatly done! I need to start organising mine, I'm planning to do it mainly online, with a specimen having a unique ID that corresponds to an entry on a sub-domain website I'm currently coding to hold my collection. (as a programmer, I can't help but to do things digitally :P, plus, it encourages me to organise as I enjoy it!)

 

With your capsules, can they be reopened one they're sealed? I'm curious, it seems like a very good way to go for my smaller specimen (Cotswolds microfossils wahey!)

 

If anyone could give any advice on very very small containers for fossils (we're talking millimetres long!), I'd be much obliged.

 

Cheers gang!

  • Enjoyed 1

~ Isaac; www.isaactfm.com 

 

"Don't move! He can't see us if we don't move!" - Alan Grant

 

Come to the spring that is The Fossil Forum, where the stream of warmth and knowledge never runs dry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IsaacTheFossilMan said:

With your capsules, can they be reopened one they're sealed? I'm curious, it seems like a very good way to go for my smaller specimen (Cotswolds microfossils wahey!)

Yes of course, but you have to keep them away from moisture otherwise both parts stick together (it’s made with fish or pork jelly). Look at what happens if you take your capsules (medications) with wet fingers: they stick to your fingers. In the worst case we can cut them with scissors or with a cutter paying attention to the fossil inside.
 
Coco
  • I found this Informative 1

----------------------
OUTIL POUR MESURER VOS FOSSILES : ici

Ma bibliothèque PDF 1 (Poissons et sélaciens récents & fossiles) : ici
Ma bibliothèque PDF 2 (Animaux vivants - sans poissons ni sélaciens) : ici
Mâchoires sélaciennes récentes : ici
Hétérodontiques et sélaciens : ici
Oeufs sélaciens récents : ici
Otolithes de poissons récents ! ici

Un Greg...

Badges-IPFOTH.jpg.f4a8635cda47a3cc506743a8aabce700.jpg Badges-MOTM.jpg.461001e1a9db5dc29ca1c07a041a1a86.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...