Show Us How You "mark" Your Fossils

[BobWill]

Fossils that are displayed usually have a "good" side pointing outward so a painted label on the back won't show anyway. Most of my fossils are stored, not displayed. For those I prefer labeling the containers. If the location where it's found is the only important data then that is all you need on your largest containers. Small specimen boxes go in larger ones. Boxes inside a location drawer (or drawer in a location cabinet) are labeled with the phylum and even smaller containers inside those labeled with more and more specific taxonomic information. This forces good identification of each item so it's possible to determine when you have found something out of known context or different enough from known descriptions to warrant examination by an expert. Of course this means you will have items of the same species in completely different larger containers but I can't think how this would hurt. Rare finds and unknown fossils are described in my field notes and placed in their own separate container.

[Ludwigia]

Yep, same here.

Marking the actual specimen seems wrong (if the mark is permanent, i mean).

Perhaps aesthetically wrong, but rather scientifically correct, I would say...

I imagine that unless the label is somewhat permanently adhered, there is always a chance of losing track of the item many years down the road.

This can easily happen when the collection gets numerous.

[jpc]

There appears to many that say it is negligent to NOT mark the fossils. And then others that say the opposite. It's hard to know which way to go.

I imagine that unless the label is somewhat permanently adhered, there is always a chance of losing track of the item many years down the road.

Bingo...

Here is a challenge: Try to find one museum that focuses on fossils that does NOT put an actual label on the fossil. A piece of paper or card can always get separated from its fossil. If the number is painted on, it will not get separated. If you take a few specimens out at once, you have to keep track of which one goes where. What if they all look similar? You wanna lay all your megs out in a row for a photo? Then your dog comes running through the house with his black lab tail a-waggin, and your data gets scattered all over the place, never to be correctly labeled again. If they are physically marked, you will avoid mis-replacing them.

Edited January 21, 2015 by jpc

[ZiggieCie]

If you have a hundred different fossils from 15 different locations and ages in your garage; in two years will you know which came from where????

Now if you just have some fossils to have some fossils, it won't really matter.

If your kids, friends, neighbors ask you what your fossils are, or where you found them???

I hate not knowing.

[Wrangellian]

Speaking as a museum professional... it is smile... the more info the better. I can't tell you how many times i have looked at some or other specimen in our collections and wondered where the heck that came form, and there is no info.

I am not used to autocorrect... and I have no idea what I meant by "it is smile". Oh, and I hate autocorrect.

Maybe you meant "It is simple"?

[Wrangellian]

If you have a hundred different fossils from 15 different locations and ages in your garage; in two years will you know which came from where????

Now if you just have some fossils to have some fossils, it won't really matter.

If your kids, friends, neighbors ask you what your fossils are, or where you found them???

I hate not knowing.

I made that mistake years ago when starting out - "I'll remember where they're all from" (or I just didn't think it was important - that things could be identified by any expert just by their appearance - Wrong! The first question is always "where is it from?" And even an answer like "Nanaimo River" is not specific enough, as the river apparently slices thru quite a section of stratigraphy.) Then they get mixed up in the ensuing years with moving etc... and I end up putting them here on the forum in the ID section with unclear location data.

Now I mark all my fossils, with white titanium ink for the cat# and hopefully soon a protective clear layer over that. I decided I didn't like the big white blotch with black lettering that I was using before - and then the clear coat on top of that which I haven't yet accomplished would be 3 cumbersome steps... White ink for the number and clear coat reduces that to 2 steps, and it's much more elegant. Make sure the inks are 'archival' (fade- moisture- light- heat- resistant). The fossils that are too small/fragile to number I just have to make do with little boxes or other containers with a label, stored neatly in a drawer. I only take those out one at a time to avoid getting them mixed up.

[Ludwigia]

Here you go. Here's a typical current example in our Forum of what can happen when you don't give enough details about your finds. At least this guy gave the general area and simple ids. Imagine what this would be like for the buyer if the original owner hadn't labelled them at all. He might not even have bothered to buy the stuff or could probably have got it real cheap if he was willing to put up with a lot of headaches, whereby the heirs lose out in the deal.

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/51924-large-collection-acquired-at-estate-sale/

[DE&i]

Speaking as a museum professional... it is smile... the more info the better. I can't tell you how many times i have looked at some or other specimen in our collections and wondered where the heck that came form, and there is no info.

I am not used to autocorrect... and I have no idea what I meant by "it is smile". Oh, and I hate autocorrect.

I couldn’t agree more I’m certainly no professional but as a volunteer we have to make as many notes as required.

And under NO circumstances what so ever should there be any bending or cutting to the original cards.

Most are over 100 years old.

Not sure when the pen marks where made.

[JustPlainPetrified]

Speaking of solutions...I have a Garmin eTrek30 GPS and have loaded Topo Canada into it. Along with this comes a BaseCamp program and I am able to record the exact location of each fossil found and attach a photo of it into the Record. Each trip now has its own waypoints identifying fossil finds with a photo. That's really all I do and then if necessary send it all along to Royal Tyrell Museum.

[Ash]

Yep, same here.

Marking the actual specimen seems wrong (if the mark is permanent, i mean).

The few scientific folks i know mark the fossil itself, writing on the actual bone - how are you meant to ensure a piece of card/paper stays with a fossil? Ink ain't gunna be mispacked

[Paleoworld-101]

The few scientific folks i know mark the fossil itself, writing on the actual bone - how are you meant to ensure a piece of card/paper stays with a fossil? Ink ain't gunna be mispacked

I can see how it is the most fool proof way of keeping info together with the specimen, but it still bugs me as i don't really like any tampering with fossils at all. Not to mention it looks ugly and if for any reason you wanted to change something or remove it you can't. For museum collections where the long term scientific importance of it's specimens is essential i can see it being more relevant but i assumed this topic was about how we as (mostly) hobbyist private collectors label our stuff.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Paleoworld-101

[jpc]

I can see how it is the most fool proof way of keeping info together with the specimen, but it still bugs me as i don't really like any tampering with fossils at all. Not to mention it looks ugly and if for any reason you wanted to change something or remove it you can't. For museum collections where the long term scientific importance of it's specimens is essential i can see it being more relevant but i assumed this topic was about how we as (mostly) hobbyist private collectors label our stuff.

Tampering with fossils happens all the time. Anyone who does any prep on any fossil has tampered with it. The prep work is done to a) expose the fossil and help preserve the fossil. Washed it with a toothbrush...? You just tampered with a fossil. Extensive air-scribing and sandblasting... you just tampered with a fossil. This tampering is good for the fossil. Tampering by writing a number on it, whether you are a museum or a private individual preserves the information about the fossil, which is just as important as the fossil itself.

Once you star writing your numbers on fossils, you have become a serious collector.

[Stocksdale]

Yes, we are talking about private hobbyist collections. However, somethings we find may be significant enough to be donated or passed along to a museum at some point and having a record of the item's location becomes important.

For myself, I'm not worrying about having specific numbers for each item. I'm just going with a location ID which will be two or three characters. Something like C01, C09, C12 for the carboniferous locations. D01 and so forth for the Devonian. I can mark that on the fossils quickly and it can be fairly small and not detract. I figure I could add a dash and a more specific fossil number at a later point. Of course, a number of mine are nodules and they clearly have a 'not important' side that can be marked.

Because of my volume of nodules, I figure this will be quicker and more fail proof than cards or stickers anyway. But, I do realize that if I have some items that I just want to sell or give away, perhaps the mark might not be desired. I don't know.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Stocksdale

[Paleoworld-101]

Tampering with fossils happens all the time. Anyone who does any prep on any fossil has tampered with it. The prep work is done to a) expose the fossil and help preserve the fossil. Washed it with a toothbrush...? You just tampered with a fossil. Extensive air-scribing and sandblasting... you just tampered with a fossil. This tampering is good for the fossil. Tampering by writing a number on it, whether you are a museum or a private individual preserves the information about the fossil, which is just as important as the fossil itself.

Once you star writing your numbers on fossils, you have become a serious collector.

I am thinking more along the line of non-natural additions to specimens, not how it is exposed or removed from matrix. If you take away the surrounding matrix to show more of a fossil you have not added any artificial components. Writing with ink on specimens is artificial and quite different.

[Kosmoceras]

A bit off topic, but here is a question for the more qualified; how do museums re-catalogue privately catalogued collections donated with their original numbering/lettering system? Do museums keep the old original numbers made by the private collector or do the museums use their own system? I think I know the answer to that but it would be interesting to see for sure. If the numbering system is adapted, how would the numbering be changed with the old number is written in permanent ink? Crossing stuff out could look messy.

Also, how would one catalogue multiple similar “common/unimportant” specimens - would you give them all the same number or each a different number?

Apologies if these questions have been answered before in previous threads.

[jpc]

I am thinking more along the line of non-natural additions to specimens, not how it is exposed or removed from matrix. If you take away the surrounding matrix to show more of a fossil you have not added any artificial components. Writing with ink on specimens is artificial and quite different.

what about glue? Non-natural addition, but holds the fossil together.

Edited January 30, 2015 by jpc

[jpc]

A bit off topic, but here is a question for the more qualified; how do museums re-catalogue privately catalogued collections donated with their original numbering/lettering system? Do museums keep the old original numbers made by the private collector or do the museums use their own system? I think I know the answer to that but it would be interesting to see for sure. If the numbering system is adapted, how would the numbering be changed with the old number is written in permanent ink? Crossing stuff out could look messy.

Also, how would one catalogue multiple similar “common/unimportant” specimens - would you give them all the same number or each a different number?

Apologies if these questions have been answered before in previous threads.

Good questions, Kosmo....

Museums certainly keep the old numbers, but often that is only kept int he database. The old number on the actual specimen is usually just painted over.

Multiple common things like, say, Cretaceous gar scales, are given a 'Lot Number" One number is used for a pile of them, and painted onto a few token examples. The other question I can see you thinking about is 'How about really small stuff?' There is great discussions in the vert paleo community as to the best way to do this. I personally here at the museum and at home keep the little things in gel capsules and write on the capsules. In both the lot and small stuff cases, we get back to the original problem of not having the specimen itself physically labeled, but face it, you do what you can with what you have.

Edited January 30, 2015 by jpc

[Kosmoceras]

Good questions, Kosmo....

Museums certainly keep the old numbers, but often that is only kept int he database. The old number on the actual specimen is usually just painted over.

Multiple common things like, say, Cretaceous gar scales, are given a 'Lot Number" One number is used for a pile of them, and painted onto a few token examples. The other question I can see you thinking about is 'How about really small stuff?' There is great discussions in the vert paleo community as to the best way to do this. I personally here at the museum and at home keep the little things in gel capsules and write on the capsules. In both the lot and small stuff cases, we get back to the original problem of not having the specimen itself physically labeled, but face it, you do what you can with what you have.

Excellent, thank you. I intend to add reference numbers to my labels and specimens in the summer when I have the time.

[Paleoworld-101]

what about glue? Non-natural addition, but holds the fossil together.

True, and this is fine with me if it is essential to keeping a fossil intact or in one piece. Generally though i do prefer totally natural specimens and only apply glue when i really have to.

[Wrangellian]

You have to ask yourself whether you are collecting for science or just displayable specimens.. and even if just displayable specimens you have to consider that they may be needed by science sometime down the road and the labels may get lost, as already pointed out, and in any case someone else will inherit your fossils when you check out of here and I'm sure they will appreciate not having to keep labels straight when they have to be moved - better to have them numbered directly and have a notebook to refer to. And even if you are concerned about them looking natural in a display setting, chances are one side of your fossil is more interesting/presentable and the other will not be visible to the viewer!

I don't care much for large white paint blobs on my (dark) specimens any more than the next guy, which is why I found a white pen and try to keep the cat# small and inconspicuous. The pen I use is a 'uni-ball signo', with white pigment ink (which I think means it is archival, ie. not going to fade like other kinds of white ink). This is like a ball-point pen with white gel ink, which is actually easier to write on rock than you might think. This can be coated with a some kind of clear protective layer but I have yet to figure out the right thing for this. If you have light colored matrix, it is even easier to find an archival black pen and write a small inconspicuous number on it, and coat it the same way after. These may not be strictly the way the pros do it but at least it's something.

I am using labels too, but mainly for my non-local fossils (ie from off Vancouver Island), but I actually am finding it is sometimes difficult to keep large info-filled labels with small fossils tidy in my drawers where they have to be crammed tightly together because space is at a premium.. so I should put a number on them all and catalogue them in my notebook the same as my Island fossils, no?

[paleoflor]

Must have looked over this interesting topic before. Having inherited a few collections from deceased collectors, I experienced first hand that documentation is paramount. And cards only work if they are carefully kept with the fossil. Unfortunately, if someone else has boxed up the collection, this is far from guaranteed. Some types of information cannot be retrieved easily. When it comes to specific locality information, for example, lost is really lost. Perhaps for this reason, I consider that marking fossils does in no way desecrate them. Markings are not that ugly. Rather, I feel it elevates the fossil to a new height, as it becomes part of a well documented collection (marking is almost like an initiation ritual). Like others here, I mark using paint pens, employing a code involving my initials and a simple counting number (after a couple years of pondering on the best format, I decided that any numbering would be better than stalling longer. I'm still happy with that decision). The numbers are present on the fossil itself, the accompanying data sheet and used as primary key in my specimen catalogue. As a double check, I also have photographs of the specimens in the catalogue. The only downside of this method is that it is time-consuming and that, as a result, I am always behind with my administration.

Specimen showing collection code in white paint.

Database entry of same specimen in catalogue.

Edited February 22, 2015 by paleoflor

[jpc]

paleoflor.... what database are you using?

[paleoflor]

paleoflor.... what database are you using?

I use a database that I built myself in MS Access.