Field Number Database - more additions

[Aiko]

Is it me, or does http://www.fieldnos.bcss.org.uk/fieldno.html not provide any data back anymore whatever number I put in?

There was a time when I checked locality numbers with http://www.cl-cactus.com/default.asp both would yield a result so I could compare the two (just in case). But not in the past few weeks. I only now get results from http://www.cl-cactus.com/default.asp.

[esp]

Is it me, or does http://www.fieldnos.bcss.org.uk/fieldno.html not provide any data back anymore whatever number I put in?

It works fine for me.
I haven't noticed any downtime there recently.

[ralphrmartin]

It seems to be working OK for me.

Can you please
(a) give me the exact URL you are typing in the browser
(b) the exact string you are entering as a query?

Also, it is best to send error reports like this to me by email, as they will get investigated more quickly that way!

Ralph

[ralphrmartin]

Thanks to Chris Sherrar and Brian Bates , Chris Sherrar's field list has been completely revised and updated, and brought into line with the numbering of photos on his website: http://cactushabitat.com/.

[Phil_SK]

Thanks to Chris Sherrar and Brian Bates , Chris Sherrar's field list has been completely revised and updated, and brought into line with the numbering of photos on his website: http://cactushabitat.com/.

Hi Ralph,
As always with your updates, I had a quick look through my database to see if there were any CS numbers with missing or incomplete location descriptions and I've hit on a problem.
If I try to look up CS 299, which I grew from BCSS seed where it was listed in Dec 2010 as Haageocereus turbidus CS299 (Nazca, Peru), the database returns a 'not found'. If I look at Chris's website, there's nowhere to search by field number, but I can get to my plant either by navigating through the species list or the location list: http://cactushabitat.com/Peru/Ica/Nazca3Ica/index.html There is no numbering of the photos that I can see.
If I check back in the database for 'Nazca' as a location, and CTRL+F for 'turbidus' I can find my plant among the 24 instances of this name as CS 616.2_299 - that's not an ideal format in a database that's geared up to deal with exact (what's the term for non-fuzzy? ) searches and of course CS 616.2 won't be found either. Is there no way of keeping the two sets of numbers with a "= CS 616.2, = CS616.2_299" or equivalent in the 'notes' field, linking the different entries? It's hard enough, sometimes, having to work out the format the collectors have used for their numbers without having to guess how it might recorded in the database.

[ChrisR]

(what's the term for non-fuzzy? )

Glabrous?

[Pattock]

(what's the term for non-fuzzy? )

Glabrous?

Nothing to add here but that was very well-played!

[ralphrmartin]

Phil

I couldn't agree with you more.

I asked Brian to suggest to Chris it is a disaster to change existing numbers, but apparently the issue was that Chris had lots of unnumbered photos on his website, which were thus very difficult to refer to precisely. Chris decided to renumber everything in a way that was logical to him given the ordering of the photos.

Brian said Chris wanted me to replace all of the existing numbers, rather than just add to them, as there were various other corrections too, so keeping the old ones would mean keeping errors.

I've sent these remarks back to Brian for Chris, so perhaps he will reconsider.

I'm afraid this is a case of "please don't shoot the messenger"...

Personally, I think people should stick to a few basic principles when assigning field numbers:

- just use numbers 1, 2, 3 etc.
DO NOT try to encode the date, locality or any other info in the number. That information can be and should be recorded separately. It can then also be corrected.

- give EVERY individual plant a new number.
It is too easy for plants to be assumed to be the same and they later turn out to be different. This avoids the need for 27a etc.

- never change a number
Only the associated information.

Ralph

[Phil_SK]

Thanks Ralph!
Maybe a different letter code would have been worth inventing - ChSh or whatever.

[ralphrmartin]

Phil

I've managed to get a good version of the old CS numbers, and have added those as well as the new format ones. So hopefully you can look up all your old numbers again now.

Ralph