Hello Steffen,

Thank you for your valuable input. With regards to the taxonomic classification for palaeontology I agree with invertebrates, vertebrates, botany etc. these terms have already been agreed upon. However for the storage classification these terms are not useful, as they say nothing about the form in which objects within collections are kept. True, macro-fossils tend to be hand specimens, but macro-fossils can also be thin sectioned. The storage classification refers to describing the main forms in which collection types are kept/stored. Regarding fluid preservation, some people have notified me that they have delicate specimens preserved in fluid within there institutes.

Next to terms i.e. “Handspecimen” there would have an example next to the terminology like below. I have also added an example of how storage is defined for modern Botany and Mycology so you can see the terminology there.

I will think further and hopefully other people will have input to help.

Best wishes

Laura

Dr. Laura Tilley

Project Assistant

CETAF, AISBL

+32 (0) 2 627 42 50

laura.tilley@cetaf.org

cid:c25b9fcb-6fab-4aa0-90c6-9864ef4ce100

CONSORTIUM OF EUROPEAN TAXONOMIC FACILITIES

c/o Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences

rue Vautier, 29 1000, Brussels. Belgium

www.cetaf.org

Exploring and documenting diversity in nature

Disclaimer: The information contained in this e-mail message it is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please reply to the sender and delete this message from your computer.

Be green, read on screen!

From: cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com <cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com> On Behalf Of Steffen Kiel
Sent: 16 December 2019 14:28
To: cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com
Subject: RE: [CETAF_ESG] Advice needed on earth science collection descriptions

Hi Laura,

Why exactly are categories like ‘fossil invertebrates, vertebrates, plants, and microfossils’ not useful? This is how the collection here in Stockholm is organized. And those I’ve seen in many other museums around the planet, too. We file fossil fungi and algae under “paleobotany”.

I had a quick glance at the table – here some thoughts:

“Handspecimens” are also called ‘macrofossils’
“Microscope slides” can potentially be confusing because for some it means ‘pollen slides’, for others it could mean ‘thin sections’, and it could even include ‘microfossil storage cells’. Thus in alignment with the previous point, why not ‘microfossils’?
I’ve never seen a collection of ‘fossil fluids’ in any museum.

But as already indicated above – if I’d be searching for fossil collections and would come to a dashboard with categories such as “handspecimens” or “fluids”, I’d be rather irritated.

Cheers, Steffen

From: cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com <cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com> On Behalf Of laura.tilley@cetaf.org
Sent: den 16 december 2019 12:40
To: ESG <cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com>
Subject: [CETAF_ESG] Advice needed on earth science collection descriptions

Dear colleagues,

I am writing to kindly ask for your advice on defining the standardised terminology “classification schemes” developed in SYNTHESYS+ for geological, palaeontological collections/objects, and also Extraterrestrial if possible. I realise the current terminology for taxonomic type and storage need urgent revision because they are not really useful. I have made revisions and ask if you agree with my suggestions or to give further input. I am aware that most of you are curators – so with regards to storage: Are my suggestions meaningful? Have I covered the main categories in which geological, palaeontological and Extraterrestrial objects are contained? Please note that it is important not to go into much detailed, the categories should be useful for high-level reporting.

Google sheets with my new suggestions (highlighted in green) of categorisation: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19hBCnsLkMILmfaFMy_YwcSiUlOVB99z7CDFnkwrrxe8/edit#gid=0

In red are the original terms for comparison.

I would please like your feedback before the 20^th December

General Terminology to be aware of: Taxonomic type: This refers to collection type e.g. for Palaeontology: invertebrates, vertebrates, botany & mycology. For Geology: minerology, petrology etc.

Storage classification: refers to what form collection objects are stored. This classification aims to be useful for information on building planning, help decision for investment of storage facilities etc.

Background

These classification schemes are being developed in SYNTHESYS+ they will be at the core of describing collections within DiSSCo, and will allow the discoverability, accessibility, mobilisation of collection data held in institutes. More specifically I am coordinating the task involved in developing a collection digitisation dashboard in which the classification schemes are being developed. The dashboard will provide high level information on collections related to Collection Taxonomic types, Storage, geographic region etc. the goal is to facilitate the discoverability of collections as well as decision making on institutional, governmental and research levels – what facilities are needed, building planning, prioritisation of digitisation, research collaboration etc.

It is important since we are the community that will be using these terms, and the goal is to promote the use of these terms beyond DiSSCo.

I hope my request make sense if not please feel free to contact me.

Thank you in advance for your help