Show Us How You "mark" Your Fossils

[Stocksdale]

I know that I should be "marking" my fossils with ID numbers. But I've been reluctant to get started. And have been a little unsure how best to do it or what numbering system to use. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I know this topic has come up a few times. (I'm posting links to similar topics in the past.)

BUT to make this one a little different, I'd be interested in seeing images of your "markings."

And maybe some encouragement for those of us reluctant to mark.

This PDF is a good resource as a start.

http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/7f/7f3a76e9-e87c-4b0a-a893-8e9b53a6efec.pdf

AND, some previous topics on record keeping and labeling.

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/43017-record-keeping/?hl=labeling

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/11814-fossil-cataloging/?p=136551&hl=catalog&fromsearch=1#entry136551

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/12566-logging-or-recording-your-finds/?hl=%2Bwriting+%2Bfossils+%2Brecords#entry143049

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/38222-white-pen/?hl=labeling#entry420458

Edited January 2, 2015 by Stocksdale

[caldigger]

I myself prefer to place the fossil on top of a business card size card with all the pertinent information on it. That way I am not marring the object and it remains pure and pristine.

[Stocksdale]

I do think it is best to mark the fossil since the card can easily be misplaced. But I certainly understand the reluctance.

And with micros and teeth I assume marking isn't even an option.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Stocksdale

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

You could use vials or gem jars and mark the lids or sides.

[jpc]

I'll be the first to answer the request. I got a new camera for Xmas, so I am happy to try it out.

Here is a Cretaceous ammonite (with added long snail). The second shot shows the back of the rock. I use the technique poroposed in the vertpaleo link in the original post.

[Stocksdale]

Thanks, jpc. Nice ammonite! On the couple that I've done so far, I did the same approach with titanium acrylic paint and a black archival pen.

[Ludwigia]

I opted in the end for a very simple method. I just use little self-adhesive labels with the collection numbers on them which are normally attached on the back or side and are easily removeable.

[michele 1937]

I write the number with ink of slope

[Ludwigia]

Sorry, but I think something got lost in the translation. What is "ink of slope"? Even google couldn't tell me anything about it.

[Sacha]

After years of collecting, in admittedly very common areas, I still don't understand the value or fascination with identifiers being placed on individual finds linking information such as date. If the fossils are of interest to us because we found them, and for the most part of no interest to any scientific body, what is the point? There is a threshold at which that data is significant, but for the general collector it seems like an added requirement with little or no value, but significant burden.

After discussions at the University of Florida, I agreed to identify finds by location (Santa Fe vs. Peace rivers) but what value does other information provide? Location (for Florida at least) covers it. Who cares if it was found by my father or by my son and when he packed it away?

I imagine a thousand collections in the northeast, with a billion horn corals, all numbered and recorded for posterity with little or no purpose.

[Ludwigia]

In my case it's quite simple. When I want to find something in my rather large collection for study, then it has a number in the data file which tells me exactly where I can find it instead of spending sometimes an hour rummaging through drawers. Vice versa, I can look at a number on the fossil when I'm checking out the collection and can go directly to the file without having to scroll through the whole thing. I would also like to think that someone will inherit the collection someday and I'm sure they'd be happy to have everything marked if I don't happen to be around any more.

[Auspex]

After years of collecting, in admittedly very common areas, I still don't understand the value or fascination with identifiers being placed on individual finds linking information such as date. If the fossils are of interest to us because we found them, and for the most part of no interest to any scientific body, what is the point?...

I label them and keep cross referenced records because what they have to say is of interest to me.

[jpc]

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.

Edited January 3, 2015 by jpc

[old dead things]

Okay JP, I'll stop by and identify all my donations. :wacko:

[erose]

After years of collecting, in admittedly very common areas, I still don't understand the value or fascination with identifiers being placed on individual finds linking information such as date. If the fossils are of interest to us because we found them, and for the most part of no interest to any scientific body, what is the point? There is a threshold at which that data is significant, but for the general collector it seems like an added requirement with little or no value, but significant burden.

After discussions at the University of Florida, I agreed to identify finds by location (Santa Fe vs. Peace rivers) but what value does other information provide? Location (for Florida at least) covers it. Who cares if it was found by my father or by my son and when he packed it away?

I imagine a thousand collections in the northeast, with a billion horn corals, all numbered and recorded for posterity with little or no purpose.

Oh my. You are certainly correct that most likely the vast majority of fossils collected by amateurs are abundant, common and already well known to science. But what about the handful that aren't? The ones that truly represent something new, rare or even just out of known context? Without some basic level of labeling they are virtually worthless to science. When I tell folks about the importance of labeling their finds I only emphasize location. The rest of the info is subjective and you are correct that the name of the collector is not a critical piece of info. I label my fossils with a number and then catalog that number as I make identifications. It is part of what makes the hobby enjoyable to me and gives it purpose. But certainly not all collectors do this, and I have come to realize that there are all sorts of levels of interest and involvement. I've had friends who collected strictly for the pleasure of being outdoors and I have had ones who collected only with their checkbook. Each found great pleasure in what they did. To each their own and despite my suggestion to the importance of labeling (at least location) I pass no judgement on those who don't. I mean we do this to have fun and if labeling isn't fun then don't do it.

Now with that said I am going to offer one anecdote: A friend/aquaintance from years back in the New York Paleontological Society was an avid collector with a very good collection of New Jersey Cretaceous as well as upstate Paleozoic material. He definitely had rare and scientifically valuable specimens, and he knew it. NOTHING was labeled and those of us who visited his collection were often dumbstruck by this. Now his explanation was that he had a photographic memory and could tell you exactly where each came from. And that was probably true. One day he will keel over and all will be lost. And most of us who knew him expected that to happen before he got around to turning it over to a museum. As far as I know he is still kicking so all is safe for now. But it will be a shame if that great collection ends up in an estate sale as just a bunch of "miscellaneous rocks and bones."

[ZiggieCie]

A part of my updated numbering system to help with the flow of my database. My numbering system goes, Z-1001 etc. My problem was with matrix pieces that had more than one important fossil on it, and trying to keep my DB ID number and my fossil number the same, not good. So in my newly designed Database I am not worried about keeping the numbers the same and now use the main fossil number with a decimal for the additional fossils on the matrix piece; Z-1025M, followed by Z-1025.01, Z-1025.02 etc. in the DB. On the fossil I only show the main # M once and sub fossils get .01, .02; this way I could go to .99 if needed but not likely.

This makes my DB and me happy. Example below.

This matrix is Mississippian age, Old Waverly group,The Strongsville member between the upper Meadville shale and lower Sharpsville member., 10X4 inches

This has a combination of Brachiopods with partial spines and Mother of pearl preserved, Graptolites, and several unknowns.

[Ludwigia]

Interesting how everyone develops their different solutions. I number my finds according to the fossil fauna, eg. A.0000=ammonites, B.0000=brachiopods, etc. When more than one fossil type is on one block, then I number the fossils separately and cross reference them in the data base.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Ludwigia

[erose]

A part of my updated numbering system to help with the flow of my database. My numbering system goes, Z-1001 etc. My problem was with matrix pieces that had more than one important fossil on it, and trying to keep my DB ID number and my fossil number the same, not good. So in my newly designed Database I am not worried about keeping the numbers the same and now use the main fossil number with a decimal for the additional fossils on the matrix piece; Z-1025M, followed by Z-1025.01, Z-1025.02 etc. in the DB. On the fossil I only show the main # M once and sub fossils get .01, .02; this way I could go to .99 if needed but not likely.

This makes my DB and me happy.

I have separate field numbers and catalog numbers. Catalog numbers are where you find the information like locality and identification. So a slab with multiple specimens will have one field number and the individual specimens will have different catalog numbers. I have used a letter suffix written on the specimen to clarify which is which. I have another system for parts and counterparts as well as those fossils in kit-form for which I decided to keep the pieces loose.

[connorp]

I like to show off my specimens, so I like people to know what they're looking at. I designed this small card and fill it out for all my fossils and place the card right next to the fossil. Might get cumbersome as my collection gets larger, but it works well for now.

[fossilselachian]

I opted in the end for a very simple method. I just use little self-adhesive labels with the collection numbers on them which are normally attached on the back or side and are easily removeable.

I do the same but the adhesive on such labels will dry out over time and the labels will fall off. I still use the labels but coat the labels, plus a little overlap, with clear nail polish. If needed the labels and nail polish are easily removed with acetone (nail polish remover). I should mention I use this labeling method primarily on shark teeth and the non-porous enamel of the tooth facilitates the easy label removal.

[Ludwigia]

I've had no major problems there. If one does happen to fall off once in a blue moon, then I always notice it at some point, check out my database and have it replaced in a minute. That just applies to the ones on display anyway. The ones in the drawers all have little cards with the numbers on them also.

[Stocksdale]

Thanks for the helpful info on the different ways to keep track of things.

I know that for my own collection, the only potentially important thing is a location ID. And this is probably most critical for items that are very similar.

For example I have several items from different Mazon Creek type locations. I can see how it will be helpful for myself to track where particular shrimps or polychaete worms are found. And if the items get in a larger collection at some point it might provide a small piece of the picture of the ecosystem. Perhaps someone can discover trends with this information at some point. If I lump all my nodules together, that future usefulness would be gone.

Anyway, I've started with just a simple system using titanium white paint and fade-resistant ink. I simply write a "C01", "C02", "C03" and so forth for each of my carboniferous materials to designate their location. I might add a number for each fossil at some point, but for now just location numbers.

[Paleoworld-101]

I myself prefer to place the fossil on top of a business card size card with all the pertinent information on it. That way I am not marring the object and it remains pure and pristine.

Yep, same here.

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

[Stocksdale]

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

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.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Stocksdale

[Runner64]

What I find that works for me, is that I have taken pictures of all my fossils and put the pictures of the fossils along with it's information on a PowerPoint.