The Society for the study of flies (Diptera)

Ideally the authority is included (it is an integral part of any species name). However in practice, if you are using the names as given in the current British Check List, then the authority is not essential. Better that the genus and species are legible - 3 pt is quite small! (and some names are quite long!)

This is an interesting quandary!

Well, for my part after years of including all the data and author names etc that we are supposed to, but consequently ending up with a huge backlog of specimens awaiting proper labels that I have to type up on a laptop, I have very recently reverted to hand writing (as I go) short labels with:

Site name
VC number
Date collected
Collector name

If I have the grid ref to hand I add this, but I don't spend time looking it up if I have not previously done so in my field notebook.

I have been omitting the author name on the data label.

The result is that I am now at least keeping up with labelling specimens as I work through them, with minimal data that should mean something to someone in future. Enough I hope to permit a future worker to work out where the beast came from and what species I thought it was. In this respect I always use a site-name that is used on an OS 25:000 scale map. If the site is known by a name not shown on the OS map, I use this followed by the most appropriate nearby location on the OS map.

Assuming that a museum would be interested in inheriting my collection (I like to think it would be of some value), what I do do is make a good full label for any important specimens such as the Callicera rufa collected in Shropshire this year.

This feels like a confessional!!

Last edited by conopid (2012-12-17 22:17:44)

We use pre-printed labels for ids with det. name and year of determination and leave a gap to write the species name and gender sign above; we usually don't give authorities - this could look like:
Lipara similis m (use gender sign if handwritten)
det. B. Ismay 2011 (printed)

We sometimes add some habitat data, e.g. chalk grassland or brownfield site or even more, but this could end up on a second label.
Our labels also contain Scotland or Wales or England ..., VC, nearest town or NNR or other official name that should still exist in quite a while.

Hope this helps,

Barbara

I have been using Neusiedler 200gsm card for printing my labels.

The printing is not sharp but that might be down to my printer not the card. My main dissatisfaction with this card is that if the label gets moved slightly on the pin for inspection it becomes loose and spins round in transit. Therefore, my specimens often look a mess in their box and I have to carefully pick them out to avoid damage by stray labels.

So I would like to know what card and pin combinations people are using with satisfaction.

Regards,
Andrew.

Last edited by Andrew Cunningham (2012-12-27 13:10:15)

I've been using 160 gsm bright white card - goes through my Canon MP600 inkjet with no problems. With this card I seldom have any difficulty about labels swinging loose - it was certainly more of a problem when printing on standard weight paper. Where this does happen, there's usually enough space to re-pin the label. At the museum, we have some older specimens glued directly to thick card, and they do sometimes start turning on their pins. The simplest solution when this happens is to fix a drop of glue under the card around the pin.
The official Canon ink is (so far, after several years) water- and alcohol-proof. Of course this needs checking on a regular basis. Printer manufacturers are notorious for changing ink formulae with no notice or warning.

My suggestion about gluing the card applies to mounting cards (to which the specimens are fixed). If I have a rotating label, I take it off and re-pin it in a different spot.

A warning about using 200 gsm card.  I use a laser printer which is permanent (unlike some inkjet printers).  But the maximum recommended card weight is 160 gsm.  I did use 200gsm card, but then I had a problem with the printer which needed a repair.  The microswitch which detects the card was no longer working - possibly because the 200gsm card was too thick/stiff for it.  I may just have been unlucky, but it could have been expensive had it not been repaired under guarantee.

I have not had any problems with 160 gsm card becoming loose in general use, or in transport.

Many laser printes have a manual-feed tray which which could be better with thicker card as it may not have to follow a convoluted path from the main paper tray. My HP laser also has a hatch at the back which can be opened to allow the paper to come straight out of the printer without bending through 180 degrees to the collection tray on the top.

Andrew Cunningham wrote:

brianh wrote:

I have not had any problems with 160 gsm card becoming loose in general use, or in transport.

Luckily, my printer accepts 200gsm without any trouble. Anything thicker doesn't get picked up at all.

My HP (LaserJet 1320) picks up 350gsm fine - it make a strange noises as it passes through the works, but always seems to print fine.

Most of the time I use 200gsm Acid free - purchased off Ebay.

Last edited by Mark (2013-01-07 16:34:29)

Having re-visited this thread to remove a spammer's response I think that I omitted to mention that I was told by a Service Manager at a large copier/printer company that when using card with a laser printer it is important to set the card weight in the Print Options settings. If it is left at the default setting for standard paper the fuser drum may not be hot enough to fuse the toner to thicker card before it passes through the rollers. This may explain why a Curator once told me not to use a laser printer with card as the letters always came off (not my experience if the paper weight is set correctly).