Agree these specimens have been very well preserved!
Yes, all have been determined Gymnadenia borealis and were collected from the same locality
Thanks, likely placed as protection when the specimen was originally mounted!
Colour tends to fade in dried specimens, seems particularly true for our British orchids, nice when colour preserved as in this1847 specimen
Thank you for your help transcribing! We have recorded all your observations
Thank you for your help transcribing these!
Thank you for your help transcribing! We have recorded all your observations for these specimens
Thanks, S. autumnalis is the former name for S. spiralis. Species names can’t be changed where the currently accepted name already appears
Thank you - A.J. Wilmott (1888 -1950) often recorded the collection date in reverse! So '430616' is therefore likely to be 16/06/1943.
Thank you, we'll need to take a closer look at this specimen to determine whether it may be a hybrid.
Thank you for this - we'll take a closer look at this specimen for a species det.
Thank you - just the annotation we need for sheets missing VC data! Yes, N. Somerset - VC6
Thanks - Orchis albida is a synonym of Pseudorchis albida (Small white orchid) which is the currently accepted name
Thanks for flagging this up! Seems likely that some specimens may be hybrids so we’ll take a closer look at these to determine species
Thank you – both collections are S. Hampshire so we’ll check the database for errors. Nice to see some flw colour still evident in these 😃
Location is Beinn Eighe in the Scottish Highlands, West Ross & Cromarty. Specimens likely towards end of flowering season as collected July
Thanks for this – we’ll investigate this further for a collection date!
Thank you, you are absolutely right! All Spiranthes spiralis specimens on this sheet. We'll check the database!
No problem. We only ask for 1 specimen annotation at a time on a mixed sheet. Other specimens on same sheet will be annotated separately.
Thanks for spotting this - looks like the locality has been wrongly entered in the database: Durham - definitely not Axminster!
Label records: 'unspotted occidentalis' so as Wilmott specimen VC109, could be var. Dactylorhiza majalis subsp. francis-drucei. We'll check.
Thank you, we'll check the database for this specimen
Yes, thanks for your observation: A J Wilmott recorded collection dates yy/mm/dd
Confusing I agree, however the label records locality as ‘Brough Hall’ which is in North Yorkshire VC65 (not East Yorkshire)
Sorry, comment below for a different specimen! This one: VC boundary - cliffs at St Cyrus/Montrose basin are VC 90/91
Confusing, I agree - however the label records locality as ‘Brough Hall’ which is in North Yorkshire, VC65 (not East Yorkshire)
Thanks, we’ll check these data - this specimen should be annotated Tiree, VC103
Label: Harris is an area on the Isle of Rum (Rhum) VC 104
Thanks, yes, VC28
Thanks, not sure why that should happen! We'll check this
Thanks - yes, don't worry, other transcriber's have said this is a difficult label! We'll take a closer look
We think Ingleton, West Riding (misspelt Inglton on label)
Thanks, I think you are right: 1946
Dactyorhiza sp - we will need to take a closer look at these specimens for a determination - the label suggests Dactylorhiza hybrid
Thanks for your work with the transcriptions; we agree some of the handwritten labels are challenging!
Many thanks for that information!
Date for specimen label on right: “30.V.1893”. Sometimes labels record month using roman numerals.
These specimens were collected by A. J. Wilmott who had a particular way of recording collection date: e.g. 36710 = 10/07/1936
Yes, unfortunately it’s difficult to read this label - we’ll take a closer look at this specimen sheet
Thanks - the specimens were collected in June 1959 (larger label) the smaller label records species determination (by P. Hunt) in 1961
Thanks for this observation - we can take a closer look at specimen to determine whether D. incarnata (Early Marsh)
Hitcham is VC26. Actually this is an interesting specimen! Collected by Revd. John Henslow who was Charles Darwin’s mentor and great friend
Likely Dactylorhiza incarnata (Early Marsh) as other specimen on sheet, but we’ll take a closer look at these specimens to determine species
‘Poisoned’ label usually indicates that in the past herbaria/specimens have been treated with fumigant/repellant to mitigate insect damage
Thanks - it is not necessary to record the Grid Reference, if there is one, just the location.
Thanks, very difficult to decipher location here which is probably why no VC recorded. We’ll look into this one!
Many thanks for your observations - there appear to be 3 locations/collections here, and also interesting data on flowering times!
If sheet status 'requires checking' the ‘greyed out’ field holds the current taxon name. If transcribing, the species name can be recorded
Hi Goffineer - many thanks for your work on transcriptions!
Each transcription/check contributes to updating/improving our specimen data and enables us to gather good research data for this project.
For more on species names see discussion board posts on this page
Anacamptis morio is the current taxon name for Orchis morio. See more on species names on discussion boards
2 collection events barcoded on this sheet - both VC41 same
location/date recorded so possibly a single collection in fact.
Checking species: the specimens on this sheet were re-determined in 2013 (label top left) as Gynadenia densiflora.
Please see previous posts on the help discussion board on checking species names. Hope this helps!
Thank you for your first classifications! We hope you like the project enough to come back and do a few more for us 😃
Thanks BellisP for the link to info on Stanford Rivers 😃
Thanks for your observation. This note is a curator’s annotation.
Thanks, I’m not sure why the sheet has been marked ‘wrong date?’ I will ask our curator!
I agree - the small brown label is very difficult to decipher - we’ll take a closer look at the sheet to see if we can make out a location
Looks like the capsule contains a photo which may have been taken in Arran, otherwise there is little collection data for this specimen!
Thank you for your first classifications! We hope you like the project enough to do a few more for us 😃 Thanks for your help!
Thank you for spotting this - the 2 collection events here need 2 barcodes!
Thanks for this; these drawings are not specimens as such, but collection items - we won’t be able to use these records for this project!
The specimen was presented to the John Blackstone herbarium in 1947 but was collected much earlier - alas no collector/date/location!!
Smaller label determines species. The envelope is a capsule containing material from the specimen (which can be sampled for DNA analysis)
The collector determined these as hybrids, possibly because both parental species occurred on the same site
Heath spotted - colour can vary from whitish to pale pink, marked with darker spots and dashes
Yes, quite a pale form of common spotted
Thanks. Very difficult handwriting! Locality probably Ingleton (VC 66)
S. spiralis is the currently accepted name - you won’t be able to change it!
See more on species names on the [?] button
Yes a very old specimen. ’HIST’ curation annotation means “Historical’ specimen; no VC known for this one.
This is a bee orchid variety - Ophrys apifera var. chlorantha
Listera ovata on label is a synonym of Neottia ovata - you wont be able to alter the currently accepted name!
A pair of Common Twayblades in flower
One of the spotted orchids - probably Common spotted, maybe a hybrid
Fairly illegible - you may be right! I’ve found ‘Perces’ marked nr Greenstead Green on an 1892 map! Pity no day/month for an 1845 specimen
Thanks for this observation - we will check to see if there are further data for this specimen
Thanks - our curators will take a closer look at this one to determine species/hybrid status
Thanks for flagging this one - These are likely to be Dactylorhiza’s - we’ll determine the species!
Thanks for this LimaZulu - we’ll need to add barcodes for all the collection events on this sheet!
Thanks for this - we’ll need to take a closer look at this one. The year would be1896
BM001081564 - I think the label reads: Loch na Cloiche Sgoilte, Moidart. VC97 (West Inverness-shire)
The location is a restricted site on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire
This is a Fragrant Orchid - Gymnadenia conopsea
yes, a white pyramidal orchid!
This is Green-winged orchid, it has distinctive green veins running lengthways in the lateral sepals (the ‘wings’)
Thanks for spotting this - we’ll take a closer look at this sheet!
Thanks - we’ll add a second barcode!
Thanks - Orchis maculata, now Dactylorhiza maculata. I agree difficult to decipher the rest!
Originally determined as Lesser butterfly, later re-determined in 2013 (typed label) as Greater butterfly
This specimen was re-determined, post collection label data, as Gymnadenia borealis
Thanks. Dactylorhiza purpurella (Northern Marsh) on this sheet
Thanks for this: Hastings Sands, Nr Burstow so yes, the sheet can be tagged VC14 (East Sussex)
Thanks, typed label obscuring date not helpful!
Location: Nedging in West Suffolk - VC26
This is a Frog Orchid
This is a Marsh Orchid - probably Southern Marsh for location (Glamorganshire)
Chailey Common in East Sussex. VC should be transcribed as VC14
Please check the [?] button on the ‘Transcribe’ pages for info on species names
Current name is Spiranthes spirals. See my post on species names on the discussion board. Hope this helps!
Thanks - Platanthera solstitialis is a synonym for current name Platanthera bifolia. Shame the label lacks data useful for this project!
Yes, difficult to see if there are any orchids here! The recorder may been recording habitat and has also uploaded orchid photos from here!
Thanks, this specimen is from Jersey and annotated 'OJ' - The Channel Islands are not part of the Great Britain 112 vice-county system
yes!
Thanks! This sheet has 5 collection events & the correct VC should be entered for each barcode/label & not all VC's as listed on sheet side
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Usually there's a handwritten label recording colln. data - here the data is typed top left! But no day or year recorded, so not helpful!
We'd like the label that matches the given barcode transcribed. The same sheet will appear again for a different barcode/label transcription
No worries if you missed the insect - other people will see this image and hopefully tag it!
There are 4 flowering stage options: 'in bud', 'in flower', 'flowering over' or 'don't know'. As you say, this one is mainly in flower
Thanks, some labels lack all the data we wish to transcribe. In this case leave the species name blank and we will determine from specimen
= Neottia ovata - current name
Many of our historical sheets have multiple barcodes per sheet for the different collection 'events'; There are 4 events on this sheet.
Thank you for letting us know which label (the correct one!) you transcribed. This sheet needs another barcode for the other specimen.
Thanks for having a go at transcribing that!
This is likely a Heath Spotted-orchid - Dactylorhiza maculata
Thank you for spotting this - as you say, there seems to be no specific collection data recorded here!
Yes, this is the former name for Spirathes spiralis. Please see my post on the Help discussion board for advice on species names!
Thanks. Latin plant names have changed over time; in this case we've ascribed the current name for this species: Neottia ovata.
Thanks for your observation. Sometimes the labels lack data - we will determine the species!
OK thanks, we'll check this.
Haynes is a village in VC30 which used to be known as ‘Hawnes’ so you’ve guessed well here! This might be Hawnes ‘road’ instead of ‘wood’?
Probably Common Fragrant, although the lip shape does look a bit Heath Fragrant
Thank you for checking that!
Loss of barcode digit might have occurred somewhere during file transfer - thanks for flagging this up!
Listera ovata is the former name for Neottia ovata. You can’t change the currently accepted name if species name already in that field!
It's Southern Marsh & one of my pics! Included here as although over/in seed it's an interesting record: first time recorded for this site!
We think this is most probably a hybrid between Common Spotted and Southern Marsh - but we'd have to visit the site to be sure!
Yes, this sheet is seriously data-deficient! We'll det. Species, but no date means we can’t include in historical dataset for this project.
Thanks very much for spotting this, looks like a transcription error and/or a database error - we’ll check this out!
BM001075509: in this case both labels, and both specimens, on left of sheet are for same collection event, so we only need one barcode here.
Don’t worry – hopefully other participants will have tagged the insect!
Thanks for spotting this: no specimen collection date (or locality) so no useful data here to include in our phenology research
Thank you for this, I agree with you – and much more likely to be a June collection date for this species – we will amend the database.
Thanks Syntrichia – a good example of a transcription error that we need our participants to spot! I’ve recorded this for further checking.
Thanks for recording this – yes, Kingsdown VC15
Thanks for comment but not D. saccifera, which is a Mediterranean species, this is D. fuchsii and was photographed in Buckinghamshire, UK
Early purple's flowering in the foreground and, although difficult to see, population extends back along the valley floor to the distance!
Thanks, possibly we would assign VC25. I'll pass on your observations for missing VC to the curator
Yes, label difficult - location: nr Noss, Caithness, and date 'July 1921' but this specimen lacks good data for our phenology study
Thanks - lack of collection data mean unlikely we can use this specimen for our phenology research. We can look more closely to det. species
Thanks for this - I agree, looks like 1857 to me
Thanks, likely D. praetermissa, for the location and unspotted leaves - we'll take a closer look at the specimen
Yes, location difficult very to decipher for this specimen - we can take a closer look at the sheet.
Thanks - a lovely specimen, and a shame there is not a little more collection information!
Thanks for this observation - we’ll get one of the team to make a species determination for this sheet
Thanks for your observation - we will barcode this specimen
Thanks for your observation: BM001189686 no collection date
Yes, it’s a shame no collection date has been recorded for this specimen BM000954055
Just a very pale pink form I think
I'm pretty sure this is just common spotted
Thank you for spotting this! You are correct: 1979
This may be an error in the database – which is why participants verifying data and highlighting errors is so important for the project
A J Wilmott typically recorded the date backwards. So here: 36704 is 04/07/1936. Watch out for this with the Wilmott label dates!
We’ll check this - the curator will add species name to the sheet!
I think you missed one! There are 3 barcodes = 3 colln. events on this sheet
Thanks, yes, not a specimen but a (photo) record – there may be more info, or even plant material, inside the capsule – we will check this!
Claverton Down is a suburb of Bath, so likely just a single collection event here.
Thank you! it’s likely the specimens on this sheet are both D. maculata
Thank you for investigating the VC for us!
Thanks for flagging this up - the specimen has been re-determined at a later date (than collection) as D. praetermissa
Thanks Ali, v. difficult to read locality hence no VC has been assigned – we’ll check the actual sheet and try to decipher!
Thanks for this info Shrina - I’ve noted this, and that the sheets holds 3 separate colln. events
Thanks - this sheet certainly needs some care and attention!
Thanks - yes, the left specimen should be marked VC17 (Surrey)
Thanks. Not technically a specimen & we will not include in analysis for this project, but a nice illustration and record for the herbarium
Thank you for this information – I’ve made a note
Thanks – we’ll need to take a closer look at the sheet/capsule to determine locality
Yes, thank you – we’ll take a closer look at this specimen to determine species
Thanks for this – it’s a shame the collector did not record a more precise location!
Yes, that would be 1939
Label localities: Naphill common, High Wycombe, Bucks,
Medmenham common, Bucks
The other is indecipherable!
I'd say common fragrant - if you look at the flower 1/2 way down spike facing, the lip is quite tri-lobed, hard to see in this photo though
This is a Marsh Helleborine, although not looking particularly happy!
Yes, green-winged! This little plant has few flowers on the spike
Poor thing!
yes, difficult...I think it's Orchis anthropophora - a Man orchid
Heath fragrant – lip longer than wide. The common fragrant usually has a wider than long lip.
Yes, southern marsh
Location may be recorded on small brown label I think - but illegible!
Thanks for this – Fetcham is in Surrey which is VC 17 as per label, not VC 21 – we will amend this on the sheet
BM001189002 - I think this plant was collected on July 10th 1883 at High Force Inn, Teesdale (if collected on same date as letter sent)
You are correct - thank you for flagging this. 2 colln. events here.
Rather short on data. Only Hampshire, and no date (date on left I don’t think refers to specimen colln). Nice drawing on the sheet though
The locality is Killean, Tayninloan, in Kintyre, Scotland.The date is 7 Aug (viii - roman numerals recorded here)1935
These specimens are all Mull - VC 103
Ardtoe Bay/Ardnamurchan is West Inverness-shire, VC 97
Thanks for spotting this – we will amend the database!
Thanks for spotting this – we can’t transcribe a species name for this label and will have to det. directly from the specimen.
Thank you for spotting this - we'll check the database
Thanks, I've noted this
Looks like these specimens are the same collection event for both specimens (collection no: 44019) so in this case label location/date OK
Thanks – this really is rather a poor specimen for the purposes of this project!
Thanks – I’ve made a note of that
great photo!
yes, Neottia ovata - Common Twayblade
This tiny plant is actually a bog orchid, growing among sundews in typical boggy habitat. Common twayblade is generally found in drier habitats such as on chalk grassland
yes, looks like most of the lip had been chewed away!
Yes O. mascula, species can exhibit a range of shades of purple, and even uncommon white-flowered variants, and also unspotted leaves sometimes
Thanks for this - we'll add a barcode.
Thanks RussiaRulez - we've noted this!
Thanks, we're asking people to select the correct barcode and then verify/transcribe the appropriate label. See the help [?] for more info
Looks like common spotted
Yes
Yes, Broad-leaved helleborine - not on our list for this project, but a nice photo of the flower!
Again, I think Common fragrant rather than Marsh
Looks like Common fragrant, from the habitat
Thanks for all your work on these sheets Richard - your observations have been noted
A photograph is not a herbarium specimen - but it is a herbarium record, together with the collection data.
Thanks for your observation Syntrichia – we’ve noted this
Yes
I agree - looks like a Southern marsh
You were correct! A marsh orchid – photographed in County Durham so probably Northern marsh, and the leaves may sometimes carry a few spots
Yes, Early purple
Yes, I would say Heath spotted
Yes looks like NM
Lip is longer than wide so Heath fragrant likely
Yes, that’s a musk orchid
I’d say Common spotted from the flower lip and lip markings
Could it be Thriplow? Cambridgeshire. That’s only a guess – it’s a tricky one!
Thanks Richard, we'll add a barcode to this sheet!
The sheet VC is correctly marked - the label records Headington Wick, Oxon, which is VC23 (now Wick Farm, Headington)
Flowers look like Southern marsh-orchid
Yes, a white-flowered variety, less common than the purple
Yes, Marsh fragrant - this is a great photo for identifying species
Yes, Heath fragrant
Thank you for this. I agree, not ovata; heart-shaped leaves in specimen Neottia cordata as labelled – we'll amend the database!
Thanks - I’ve had a closer look at the label: 1892
Yes, definitely one of the butterfly orchids
The lip is diamond-shaped & the orchid photographed in Banffshire - so likely to be Northern Marsh
I agree – looks like Common spotted in seed
Thanks for your observation - we’ve noted this.
Thanks for this – I think VC26 likely for this specimen
yes, common twayblade still in bud
I think this may be northern marsh
I agree - southern marsh if location is oxforshire
Yes, that's an early marsh!
Definitely common twayblade
Yes, early purple orchid
Looks like a southern marsh
Yes, a nice photo of the Frog orchid
Yes, Early Purple
Agree, rather out-of-focus and difficult to ID - we'll need to check the location
Yes, Northern Marsh
yes - a grassland area in South Essex with 100's of common spotted's 😃
Thanks Jade - it’s Borth, Cardiganshire (VC 46)
Greater Butterfly-orchid. Note position of non-parallel pollinia
Frog orchids - the book is helpfully providing the ID here!
yes
Yes
Yes, good ID - green winged
Early purple
Difficult to see against the background but looks like the tiny bog orchid - growing with some sundews bottom left!
Looks like this one was photographed in VC Warwickshire so more likely to be Southern marsh...
We think these are Dactylorhiza hybrids - probably D. x grandis - follow link in post below for more comments
This may be marsh fragrant - the lip looks wider than long to me. Lip length/width is one ID feature, check the ID guide for more on these
yes - lovely population of early purple
Or common spotted - 3 equal lobes and deeper lip notches than heath spotted
Yes - the early Marsh has very distinctive lip markings
Yes, Frog orchid
Greater Butterfly - this image is a good example of visible pollen structures assisting ID - see my posting on Help page 3 hrs ago!
OK thanks for that - noted!.Loss of barcode digit might have occurred somewhere during file transfers
Thanks, yes, Gamlingay Cambridgeshire
Let’s hope so! We’ll check
Thanks. This is not a useful sheet - there is no way we can be absolutely sure which specimens are for which collection event!
Thanks – all these localities are Glamorganshire VC 41
Thank you for this observation
Thanks – I’ve noted this
Thanks, we’ll correct that in the spreadsheet - no colln. dates for these, the Feb date relates to Babbington’s letter!
Thanks –no collection data means we may not able to use this specimen for this research project
You may be right. There is a Walsworth Hall in VC 33…so we might have to sleuth a bit more for the right location here!
Thanks Richard – I've noted this
Thanks for this. We’ll need to take a closer look at this sheet. There are also no collection dates recorded so not helpful for research!
Combe Martin situated in long narrow valley about 2 miles long so different colln. localities (and dates) indicate a barcode for each
I think this may be common spotted - very much run to seed!
Thanks for flagging this. Two collection events – we’ll need to add a barcode
You’re right! No flowering spike here…appears to have been cut from the top of the stem 😦
Thanks – we’ll need to add a barcode for these specimens
Thanks Richard – we’ll check the original sheet and hopefully be able to extract the data from the label underneath!
Thanks Richard, yes, but unfortunately no collection date!
I’m pretty sure label and specimens are for Forfar (VC90) and the Culbin reference/colln.number do not represent any specimens on this sheet
Thanks, I’ve taken a closer look at the label – I think it’s June 19 1882
Assume you refer to the ‘Box Hill’ half label? Lacks actual collection date so I’m afraid this record not useful for this research project!
Thanks for flagging this - March would be very early for flowering, but we’ll double check this annotation
No.1. Malvern July 1868 refers to the sad-looking stemless specimen far right (Malvern VC 36/37). No.2. dated 1876 refers to VC23 specimen
I think this one is Heath Fragrant
Common Fragrant
I’m not convinced this is water in the background. We’ll check recorder info. GFH associated with pine woods, & in northwest England, dunes
Yes, BM001128084 lacks the data useful for this project!
It's difficult to be sure whether the 3 specimens here relate directly to the typed info bottom right corner. Also no collection date.
Alas, the address/date on the note here doesn’t help us determine the exact location/date of the collected specimens!
Thank you for this observation - this will be amended
Thank you pjm – we'll edit in our database
Thank for this. I agree locality illegible, and as there is no date for this specimen it is not useful for this project
Lovely photograph!
See previous post. A human - probably this one – will be able to retrieve locality data!
Occasionally the software fails to detect & allocate VC to grid ref – however all photo localities are recorded in the metadata
I don’t think this is the specimen collection date, rather the herbarium date. Requires further investigation...
One would hope there is something in the capsule...hopefully the rest of the plant!
Possibly a continuation sheet? I will alert our curator!
One label dated 1842, the other 1844 - the likely reason for 2 barcodes. That doesn’t help us decide which specimen relates to which label!
Thanks – I’ve recorded this observation
We'll include data for the two collections with dates & barcodes here (no coll. date for ‘Box Hill’ label top/specimen left on this sheet)
One barcode relates to photos/label left, one to specimen/label top, and one to specimen/label bottom - though agree sheet unclear & messy!
Yes, BM001075460 is VC 34
Not at all easy to see, but VC6 (North Somerset) is written small about half way up the right hand side of the sheet
Thanks Richard – I’ve made a note of this
Yes, I think this is correct
Thanks - I've made a note of that
Thanks – I think you are right: Goathland is VC 62 and the VC80 recorded on the sheet is incorrect
Glenquin, and ‘Glauquin’ (a location I’ve seen referenced in botanical literature) in County Clare, Ireland, may be the same place.
BM000933993: on closer examination of the handwriting, I think the collection date could be1836
An interesting sheet with lots of detailed notes – the label top left corner indicates these specimens were confirmed as D. fuchsii in 2014
We think it's a hybrid - most likely between Common Spotted and Southern Marsh
This is Greater Butterfly - well on the way to seed!
Thank you for the link - interesting!
Thanks - I have noted that this sheet carries an illustration, rather than an actual specimen!
Many thanks for this observation for BM001081123: Halstead, Kent should be VC 16, not 19
You are right Mike - I wasn't looking at it wearing my rose-tinted specs!
Thank you for spotting this!
Looks like heath spotted from the habitat, and flower shape and lip markings, but there are no spots on leaves
Yes, difficult – the pollinia (ID feature) are photographed from the side so hard to tell if they are close together or wider apart.
From the flower shape this looks like heath spotted. This one is white and is unmarked with the usual darker pink dots and dashes on the lip
No worries - other people will hopefully tag the insect! Possibly a Malachite Beetle...
Difficult one - but I also think this is Greater Butterfly
This is Common Twayblade (Neottia ovata)
A pyramidal var. albiflora I think
thanks - his sheet needs a a bit of sorting out!
thanks Richard - specimen 'B' need a barcode!
I think this is a white marsh fragrant - lovely!
This is a bee orchid variety which has whitish sepals and a greenish- yellow lip: var. chlorantha
I'd say northern marsh
You are right - Common Twayblade
The specimen on the left is separate from the capsule and label on the right and should have a barcode - thanks for flagging this up
Lovely bee in a forest of wild flowers – a Mike Waller image if I’m not mistaken?!
Beautiful photo of E. palustris!
That's fine. We are ideally after tags for any visible insects so our entom experts can ID - I'm not sure even they can do that from a web!
Thanks pjm19 - this will be amended in the database - we are certainly getting some good herbarium sheet calls today!
Thanks for this observation Richard – yes, BM001165507 should have been recorded as G. borealis - this will be corrected!
Thanks for this. BM001165506 should be logged as G. conopsea – we will amend the database.
Thanks for spotting this - I don't think there is! In fact, there is little info on this sheet to qualify either collection event for VC10
Thanks for this - looks like VC is all we have here with no specific locality other than 'hotel grounds'!
I agree, label data very difficult to decipher. VC H38 is County Down, so the locality might possibly read 'Kircubbin' We'll check this!
Lovely photo of the Marsh Helleborine - complete with visiting insect!
Thanks - we can check the capsule for the label
The labellum markings are there, but are quite pale
Thanks Richard - I've noted this
Likely to be a very pale version of common spotted
Where leaves have a distinctive character e.g spotted or unspotted which may help with ID between similar species, this is included in guide
The label reads: Listera cordata, which is the former name for Neottia cordata (Common Twayblade)
yes, green-winged - the upper two petals have green lines running lengthways
I agree - if spike tip not visible the plant may be more 'in bud' than 'in flower' - I would tag 'in flower' for these
Thanks Richard - we can not assume a VC for this particular specimen!
You need x-ray eyes for this! Bad labelling - we will have to closely examine the sheet to extract date.
For BM001072188 it looks like we will have to check the database. It's possible there maybe an annotation on reverse of sheet
wow - thanks for researching this and for being so thorough!
Well spotted! I have now recorded this
Thank you Richard, this had been recorded
The label may be in the capsule, also the curatorial annotation "2a" in lower rt corner may suggest more than 1 sheet for the colln. event.
yes, not a pure albino, but a very pale form of D. fuchsii and without the leaf spot pigment
Difficult to say which of the butterfly orchids this is without a clear view of the pollen-bearing structures in this image
These are the (somewhat devoured) basal leaves of Common Twayblade, with the emerging flower spike in the centre
Thank you for your observations on these pjm!
Thank you for your observations on these Rich!
Marsh orchids, likely D. incarnata (early marsh) or a hybrid with D. fuchsii (in background). Classify flowering as 'over' for these.
One of the fragrants - Gymnadenia conopsea
This is a confusing sheet - thanks for clarifying which of these numbered collection events you have classified for us.
Thank you - looks like there is a barcode record error in our data! Your observation has been logged
Yes, the specimen is likely to be inside the capsule on this sheet
Thank you for spotting this Richard!
I can't see any orchids in this shot - unless there are some rosettes which are difficult to see
Thanks for spotting this Richard - I agree on the location!
Yes, the three specimens bottom left may have been re-mounted onto this sheet without transferring original annotations!
This blank one is probably a technical glitch i.e. a photo mis-upload - we will check
Looks like an early purple - interesting flower colour!
In this instance, the label and specimen associated with barcode BM-----7222 is data-deficient.
VC "SG" written here is "Sania Guernsey" (previously) The VC for Guernsey is now 0 (zero)
Amended location to CROHAM Hurst
Thanks for this observation - you are right , there are two collection events here.
I agree - this may be a hybrid
I agree - difficult to ID from this image
Thank you - well spotted!
I think these numbers are collection years - however, I will check your query with the curator!
Lovely image of fly orchid
Thank you for spotting this - we have recorded your observation
This is an Early Purple albino variant - very nice!
looks like G. conopsea (common fragrant)
Orchis is the former name for the Dactylorhiza's - a notoriously tricky genus to identify in living plants, let alone as dried specimens!
Thanks Richard for your work on the herbarium sheets; your observations for each sheet have been recorded
This is green-winged - a key ID feature are the horizontal green lines on the upper petals
This is what we call a 'continuation' sheet; these illustrations probably accompany the actual specimen which is on another sheet.
Quite a fewof us have had a look at this image - we don't know what it is!
Could be common spotted - we need to wait for the flowers...
Actually, I don't know why this sheet is even in the dataset - there is no barcode! The mystery will be investigated...
Good Spot. We've had a few images with insects but they can be difficult to see - I'll pass this on to one of our entomologists for ID
Possibly an albino variety of the early purple
Yes, very likely to be Common Twayblade
Probably one of the butterfly orchids
Thank you - we will amend this in the database
White green-winged. This variety can occur in a predominantly purple green-winged population - as on this site in Dorset.
lovely photo of Birds-nest orchid
Two of our museum botanists have identified this one as Dactylorhiza grandis - a hybrid between common spotted and southern marsh
Thank you for spotting this! There are indeed 3 collection events on this sheet and only one barcode. I have just spoken to one of the recent reviewers for this sheet who confirmed that this difficulty here was in tying the individual specimens to the collection data.
Probably a Greater Butterfly rosette
Yes, this is Early purple
Green-winged!
Species name error: BM001164285 is Spiranthes autumnalis
Thanks David!
Thanks for spotting this Richard - specimen on left is G. borealis not G. conopsea - we will amend in the database!
Two of these specimens (R & L) do look like late stage flowering/early fruiting, central specimen less advanced stage. Well spotted!
Agree these specimens have been very well preserved!
Yes, all have been determined Gymnadenia borealis and were collected from the same locality
Thanks, likely placed as protection when the specimen was originally mounted!
Colour tends to fade in dried specimens, seems particularly true for our British orchids, nice when colour preserved as in this1847 specimen
Thank you for your help transcribing! We have recorded all your observations
Thank you for your help transcribing these!
Thank you for your help transcribing! We have recorded all your observations for these specimens
Thanks, S. autumnalis is the former name for S. spiralis. Species names can’t be changed where the currently accepted name already appears
Thank you - A.J. Wilmott (1888 -1950) often recorded the collection date in reverse! So '430616' is therefore likely to be 16/06/1943.
Thank you, we'll need to take a closer look at this specimen to determine whether it may be a hybrid.
Thank you for this - we'll take a closer look at this specimen for a species det.
Thank you - just the annotation we need for sheets missing VC data! Yes, N. Somerset - VC6
Thanks - Orchis albida is a synonym of Pseudorchis albida (Small white orchid) which is the currently accepted name
Thanks for flagging this up! Seems likely that some specimens may be hybrids so we’ll take a closer look at these to determine species
Thank you – both collections are S. Hampshire so we’ll check the database for errors. Nice to see some flw colour still evident in these 😃
Location is Beinn Eighe in the Scottish Highlands, West Ross & Cromarty. Specimens likely towards end of flowering season as collected July
Thanks for this – we’ll investigate this further for a collection date!
Thank you, you are absolutely right! All Spiranthes spiralis specimens on this sheet. We'll check the database!
No problem. We only ask for 1 specimen annotation at a time on a mixed sheet. Other specimens on same sheet will be annotated separately.
Thanks for spotting this - looks like the locality has been wrongly entered in the database: Durham - definitely not Axminster!
Label records: 'unspotted occidentalis' so as Wilmott specimen VC109, could be var. Dactylorhiza majalis subsp. francis-drucei. We'll check.
Thank you, we'll check the database for this specimen
Yes, thanks for your observation: A J Wilmott recorded collection dates yy/mm/dd
Confusing I agree, however the label records locality as ‘Brough Hall’ which is in North Yorkshire VC65 (not East Yorkshire)
Sorry, comment below for a different specimen! This one: VC boundary - cliffs at St Cyrus/Montrose basin are VC 90/91
Confusing, I agree - however the label records locality as ‘Brough Hall’ which is in North Yorkshire, VC65 (not East Yorkshire)
Thanks, we’ll check these data - this specimen should be annotated Tiree, VC103
Label: Harris is an area on the Isle of Rum (Rhum) VC 104
Thanks, yes, VC28
Thanks, not sure why that should happen! We'll check this
Thanks - yes, don't worry, other transcriber's have said this is a difficult label! We'll take a closer look
We think Ingleton, West Riding (misspelt Inglton on label)
Thanks, I think you are right: 1946
Dactyorhiza sp - we will need to take a closer look at these specimens for a determination - the label suggests Dactylorhiza hybrid
Thanks for your work with the transcriptions; we agree some of the handwritten labels are challenging!
Many thanks for that information!
Date for specimen label on right: “30.V.1893”. Sometimes labels record month using roman numerals.
These specimens were collected by A. J. Wilmott who had a particular way of recording collection date: e.g. 36710 = 10/07/1936
Yes, unfortunately it’s difficult to read this label - we’ll take a closer look at this specimen sheet
Thanks - the specimens were collected in June 1959 (larger label) the smaller label records species determination (by P. Hunt) in 1961
Thanks for this observation - we can take a closer look at specimen to determine whether D. incarnata (Early Marsh)
Hitcham is VC26. Actually this is an interesting specimen! Collected by Revd. John Henslow who was Charles Darwin’s mentor and great friend
Likely Dactylorhiza incarnata (Early Marsh) as other specimen on sheet, but we’ll take a closer look at these specimens to determine species
‘Poisoned’ label usually indicates that in the past herbaria/specimens have been treated with fumigant/repellant to mitigate insect damage
Thanks - it is not necessary to record the Grid Reference, if there is one, just the location.
Thanks, very difficult to decipher location here which is probably why no VC recorded. We’ll look into this one!
Many thanks for your observations - there appear to be 3 locations/collections here, and also interesting data on flowering times!
If sheet status 'requires checking' the ‘greyed out’ field holds the current taxon name. If transcribing, the species name can be recorded
Hi Goffineer - many thanks for your work on transcriptions!
Each transcription/check contributes to updating/improving our specimen data and enables us to gather good research data for this project.
For more on species names see discussion board posts on this page
Anacamptis morio is the current taxon name for Orchis morio. See more on species names on discussion boards
2 collection events barcoded on this sheet - both VC41 same
location/date recorded so possibly a single collection in fact.
Checking species: the specimens on this sheet were re-determined in 2013 (label top left) as Gynadenia densiflora.
Please see previous posts on the help discussion board on checking species names. Hope this helps!
Thank you for your first classifications! We hope you like the project enough to come back and do a few more for us 😃
Thanks BellisP for the link to info on Stanford Rivers 😃
Thanks for your observation. This note is a curator’s annotation.
Thanks, I’m not sure why the sheet has been marked ‘wrong date?’ I will ask our curator!
I agree - the small brown label is very difficult to decipher - we’ll take a closer look at the sheet to see if we can make out a location
Looks like the capsule contains a photo which may have been taken in Arran, otherwise there is little collection data for this specimen!
Thank you for your first classifications! We hope you like the project enough to do a few more for us 😃 Thanks for your help!
Thank you for spotting this - the 2 collection events here need 2 barcodes!
Thanks for this; these drawings are not specimens as such, but collection items - we won’t be able to use these records for this project!
The specimen was presented to the John Blackstone herbarium in 1947 but was collected much earlier - alas no collector/date/location!!
Smaller label determines species. The envelope is a capsule containing material from the specimen (which can be sampled for DNA analysis)
The collector determined these as hybrids, possibly because both parental species occurred on the same site
Heath spotted - colour can vary from whitish to pale pink, marked with darker spots and dashes
Yes, quite a pale form of common spotted
Thanks. Very difficult handwriting! Locality probably Ingleton (VC 66)
S. spiralis is the currently accepted name - you won’t be able to change it!
See more on species names on the [?] button
Yes a very old specimen. ’HIST’ curation annotation means “Historical’ specimen; no VC known for this one.
This is a bee orchid variety - Ophrys apifera var. chlorantha
Listera ovata on label is a synonym of Neottia ovata - you wont be able to alter the currently accepted name!
A pair of Common Twayblades in flower
One of the spotted orchids - probably Common spotted, maybe a hybrid
Fairly illegible - you may be right! I’ve found ‘Perces’ marked nr Greenstead Green on an 1892 map! Pity no day/month for an 1845 specimen
Thanks for this observation - we will check to see if there are further data for this specimen
Thanks - our curators will take a closer look at this one to determine species/hybrid status
Thanks for flagging this one - These are likely to be Dactylorhiza’s - we’ll determine the species!
Thanks for this LimaZulu - we’ll need to add barcodes for all the collection events on this sheet!
Thanks for this - we’ll need to take a closer look at this one. The year would be1896
BM001081564 - I think the label reads: Loch na Cloiche Sgoilte, Moidart. VC97 (West Inverness-shire)
The location is a restricted site on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire
This is a Fragrant Orchid - Gymnadenia conopsea
yes, a white pyramidal orchid!
This is Green-winged orchid, it has distinctive green veins running lengthways in the lateral sepals (the ‘wings’)
Thanks for spotting this - we’ll take a closer look at this sheet!
Thanks - we’ll add a second barcode!
Thanks - Orchis maculata, now Dactylorhiza maculata. I agree difficult to decipher the rest!
Originally determined as Lesser butterfly, later re-determined in 2013 (typed label) as Greater butterfly
This specimen was re-determined, post collection label data, as Gymnadenia borealis
Thanks. Dactylorhiza purpurella (Northern Marsh) on this sheet
Thanks for this: Hastings Sands, Nr Burstow so yes, the sheet can be tagged VC14 (East Sussex)
Thanks, typed label obscuring date not helpful!
Location: Nedging in West Suffolk - VC26
This is a Frog Orchid
This is a Marsh Orchid - probably Southern Marsh for location (Glamorganshire)
Chailey Common in East Sussex. VC should be transcribed as VC14
Please check the [?] button on the ‘Transcribe’ pages for info on species names
Current name is Spiranthes spirals. See my post on species names on the discussion board. Hope this helps!
Thanks - Platanthera solstitialis is a synonym for current name Platanthera bifolia. Shame the label lacks data useful for this project!
Yes, difficult to see if there are any orchids here! The recorder may been recording habitat and has also uploaded orchid photos from here!
Thanks, this specimen is from Jersey and annotated 'OJ' - The Channel Islands are not part of the Great Britain 112 vice-county system
yes!
Thanks! This sheet has 5 collection events & the correct VC should be entered for each barcode/label & not all VC's as listed on sheet side
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Thanks - see my post on genus/species names on the Help discussion board
Usually there's a handwritten label recording colln. data - here the data is typed top left! But no day or year recorded, so not helpful!
We'd like the label that matches the given barcode transcribed. The same sheet will appear again for a different barcode/label transcription
No worries if you missed the insect - other people will see this image and hopefully tag it!
There are 4 flowering stage options: 'in bud', 'in flower', 'flowering over' or 'don't know'. As you say, this one is mainly in flower
Thanks, some labels lack all the data we wish to transcribe. In this case leave the species name blank and we will determine from specimen
= Neottia ovata - current name
Many of our historical sheets have multiple barcodes per sheet for the different collection 'events'; There are 4 events on this sheet.
Thank you for letting us know which label (the correct one!) you transcribed. This sheet needs another barcode for the other specimen.
Thanks for having a go at transcribing that!
This is likely a Heath Spotted-orchid - Dactylorhiza maculata
Thank you for spotting this - as you say, there seems to be no specific collection data recorded here!
Yes, this is the former name for Spirathes spiralis. Please see my post on the Help discussion board for advice on species names!
Thanks. Latin plant names have changed over time; in this case we've ascribed the current name for this species: Neottia ovata.
Thanks for your observation. Sometimes the labels lack data - we will determine the species!
OK thanks, we'll check this.
Haynes is a village in VC30 which used to be known as ‘Hawnes’ so you’ve guessed well here! This might be Hawnes ‘road’ instead of ‘wood’?
Probably Common Fragrant, although the lip shape does look a bit Heath Fragrant
Thank you for checking that!
Loss of barcode digit might have occurred somewhere during file transfer - thanks for flagging this up!
Listera ovata is the former name for Neottia ovata. You can’t change the currently accepted name if species name already in that field!
It's Southern Marsh & one of my pics! Included here as although over/in seed it's an interesting record: first time recorded for this site!
We think this is most probably a hybrid between Common Spotted and Southern Marsh - but we'd have to visit the site to be sure!
Yes, this sheet is seriously data-deficient! We'll det. Species, but no date means we can’t include in historical dataset for this project.
Thanks very much for spotting this, looks like a transcription error and/or a database error - we’ll check this out!
BM001075509: in this case both labels, and both specimens, on left of sheet are for same collection event, so we only need one barcode here.
Don’t worry – hopefully other participants will have tagged the insect!
Thanks for spotting this: no specimen collection date (or locality) so no useful data here to include in our phenology research
Thank you for this, I agree with you – and much more likely to be a June collection date for this species – we will amend the database.
Thanks Syntrichia – a good example of a transcription error that we need our participants to spot! I’ve recorded this for further checking.
Thanks for recording this – yes, Kingsdown VC15
Thanks for comment but not D. saccifera, which is a Mediterranean species, this is D. fuchsii and was photographed in Buckinghamshire, UK
Early purple's flowering in the foreground and, although difficult to see, population extends back along the valley floor to the distance!
Thanks, possibly we would assign VC25. I'll pass on your observations for missing VC to the curator
Yes, label difficult - location: nr Noss, Caithness, and date 'July 1921' but this specimen lacks good data for our phenology study
Thanks - lack of collection data mean unlikely we can use this specimen for our phenology research. We can look more closely to det. species
Thanks for this - I agree, looks like 1857 to me
Thanks, likely D. praetermissa, for the location and unspotted leaves - we'll take a closer look at the specimen
Yes, location difficult very to decipher for this specimen - we can take a closer look at the sheet.
Thanks - a lovely specimen, and a shame there is not a little more collection information!
Thanks for this observation - we’ll get one of the team to make a species determination for this sheet
Thanks for your observation - we will barcode this specimen
Thanks for your observation: BM001189686 no collection date
Yes, it’s a shame no collection date has been recorded for this specimen BM000954055
Just a very pale pink form I think
I'm pretty sure this is just common spotted
Thank you for spotting this! You are correct: 1979
This may be an error in the database – which is why participants verifying data and highlighting errors is so important for the project
A J Wilmott typically recorded the date backwards. So here: 36704 is 04/07/1936. Watch out for this with the Wilmott label dates!
We’ll check this - the curator will add species name to the sheet!
I think you missed one! There are 3 barcodes = 3 colln. events on this sheet
Thanks, yes, not a specimen but a (photo) record – there may be more info, or even plant material, inside the capsule – we will check this!
Claverton Down is a suburb of Bath, so likely just a single collection event here.
Thank you! it’s likely the specimens on this sheet are both D. maculata
Thank you for investigating the VC for us!
Thanks for flagging this up - the specimen has been re-determined at a later date (than collection) as D. praetermissa
Thanks Ali, v. difficult to read locality hence no VC has been assigned – we’ll check the actual sheet and try to decipher!
Thanks for this info Shrina - I’ve noted this, and that the sheets holds 3 separate colln. events
Thanks - this sheet certainly needs some care and attention!
Thanks - yes, the left specimen should be marked VC17 (Surrey)
Thanks. Not technically a specimen & we will not include in analysis for this project, but a nice illustration and record for the herbarium
Thank you for this information – I’ve made a note
Thanks – we’ll need to take a closer look at the sheet/capsule to determine locality
Yes, thank you – we’ll take a closer look at this specimen to determine species
Thanks for this – it’s a shame the collector did not record a more precise location!
Yes, that would be 1939
Label localities: Naphill common, High Wycombe, Bucks,
Medmenham common, Bucks
The other is indecipherable!
I'd say common fragrant - if you look at the flower 1/2 way down spike facing, the lip is quite tri-lobed, hard to see in this photo though
This is a Marsh Helleborine, although not looking particularly happy!
Yes, green-winged! This little plant has few flowers on the spike
Poor thing!
yes, difficult...I think it's Orchis anthropophora - a Man orchid
Heath fragrant – lip longer than wide. The common fragrant usually has a wider than long lip.
Yes, southern marsh
Location may be recorded on small brown label I think - but illegible!
Thanks for this – Fetcham is in Surrey which is VC 17 as per label, not VC 21 – we will amend this on the sheet
BM001189002 - I think this plant was collected on July 10th 1883 at High Force Inn, Teesdale (if collected on same date as letter sent)
You are correct - thank you for flagging this. 2 colln. events here.
Rather short on data. Only Hampshire, and no date (date on left I don’t think refers to specimen colln). Nice drawing on the sheet though
The locality is Killean, Tayninloan, in Kintyre, Scotland.The date is 7 Aug (viii - roman numerals recorded here)1935
These specimens are all Mull - VC 103
Ardtoe Bay/Ardnamurchan is West Inverness-shire, VC 97
Thanks for spotting this – we will amend the database!
Thanks for spotting this – we can’t transcribe a species name for this label and will have to det. directly from the specimen.
Thank you for spotting this - we'll check the database
Thanks, I've noted this
Looks like these specimens are the same collection event for both specimens (collection no: 44019) so in this case label location/date OK
Thanks – this really is rather a poor specimen for the purposes of this project!
Thanks – I’ve made a note of that
great photo!
yes, Neottia ovata - Common Twayblade
This tiny plant is actually a bog orchid, growing among sundews in typical boggy habitat. Common twayblade is generally found in drier habitats such as on chalk grassland
yes, looks like most of the lip had been chewed away!
Yes O. mascula, species can exhibit a range of shades of purple, and even uncommon white-flowered variants, and also unspotted leaves sometimes
Thanks for this - we'll add a barcode.
Thanks RussiaRulez - we've noted this!
Thanks, we're asking people to select the correct barcode and then verify/transcribe the appropriate label. See the help [?] for more info
Looks like common spotted
Yes
Yes, Broad-leaved helleborine - not on our list for this project, but a nice photo of the flower!
Again, I think Common fragrant rather than Marsh
Looks like Common fragrant, from the habitat
Thanks for all your work on these sheets Richard - your observations have been noted
A photograph is not a herbarium specimen - but it is a herbarium record, together with the collection data.
Thanks for your observation Syntrichia – we’ve noted this
Yes
I agree - looks like a Southern marsh
You were correct! A marsh orchid – photographed in County Durham so probably Northern marsh, and the leaves may sometimes carry a few spots
Yes, Early purple
Yes, I would say Heath spotted
Yes looks like NM
Lip is longer than wide so Heath fragrant likely
Yes, that’s a musk orchid
I’d say Common spotted from the flower lip and lip markings
Could it be Thriplow? Cambridgeshire. That’s only a guess – it’s a tricky one!
Thanks Richard, we'll add a barcode to this sheet!
The sheet VC is correctly marked - the label records Headington Wick, Oxon, which is VC23 (now Wick Farm, Headington)
Flowers look like Southern marsh-orchid
Yes, a white-flowered variety, less common than the purple
Yes, Marsh fragrant - this is a great photo for identifying species
Yes, Heath fragrant
Thank you for this. I agree, not ovata; heart-shaped leaves in specimen Neottia cordata as labelled – we'll amend the database!
Thanks - I’ve had a closer look at the label: 1892
Yes, definitely one of the butterfly orchids
The lip is diamond-shaped & the orchid photographed in Banffshire - so likely to be Northern Marsh
I agree – looks like Common spotted in seed
Thanks for your observation - we’ve noted this.
Thanks for this – I think VC26 likely for this specimen
yes, common twayblade still in bud
I think this may be northern marsh
I agree - southern marsh if location is oxforshire
Yes, that's an early marsh!
Definitely common twayblade
Yes, early purple orchid
Looks like a southern marsh
Yes, a nice photo of the Frog orchid
Yes, Early Purple
Agree, rather out-of-focus and difficult to ID - we'll need to check the location
Yes, Northern Marsh
yes - a grassland area in South Essex with 100's of common spotted's 😃
Thanks Jade - it’s Borth, Cardiganshire (VC 46)
Greater Butterfly-orchid. Note position of non-parallel pollinia
Frog orchids - the book is helpfully providing the ID here!
yes
Yes
Yes, good ID - green winged
Early purple
Difficult to see against the background but looks like the tiny bog orchid - growing with some sundews bottom left!
Looks like this one was photographed in VC Warwickshire so more likely to be Southern marsh...
We think these are Dactylorhiza hybrids - probably D. x grandis - follow link in post below for more comments
This may be marsh fragrant - the lip looks wider than long to me. Lip length/width is one ID feature, check the ID guide for more on these
yes - lovely population of early purple
Or common spotted - 3 equal lobes and deeper lip notches than heath spotted
Yes - the early Marsh has very distinctive lip markings
Yes, Frog orchid
Greater Butterfly - this image is a good example of visible pollen structures assisting ID - see my posting on Help page 3 hrs ago!
OK thanks for that - noted!.Loss of barcode digit might have occurred somewhere during file transfers
Thanks, yes, Gamlingay Cambridgeshire
Let’s hope so! We’ll check
Thanks. This is not a useful sheet - there is no way we can be absolutely sure which specimens are for which collection event!
Thanks – all these localities are Glamorganshire VC 41
Thank you for this observation
Thanks – I’ve noted this
Thanks, we’ll correct that in the spreadsheet - no colln. dates for these, the Feb date relates to Babbington’s letter!
Thanks –no collection data means we may not able to use this specimen for this research project
You may be right. There is a Walsworth Hall in VC 33…so we might have to sleuth a bit more for the right location here!
Thanks Richard – I've noted this
Thanks for this. We’ll need to take a closer look at this sheet. There are also no collection dates recorded so not helpful for research!
Combe Martin situated in long narrow valley about 2 miles long so different colln. localities (and dates) indicate a barcode for each
I think this may be common spotted - very much run to seed!
Thanks for flagging this. Two collection events – we’ll need to add a barcode
You’re right! No flowering spike here…appears to have been cut from the top of the stem 😦
Thanks – we’ll need to add a barcode for these specimens
Thanks Richard – we’ll check the original sheet and hopefully be able to extract the data from the label underneath!
Thanks Richard, yes, but unfortunately no collection date!
I’m pretty sure label and specimens are for Forfar (VC90) and the Culbin reference/colln.number do not represent any specimens on this sheet
Thanks, I’ve taken a closer look at the label – I think it’s June 19 1882
Assume you refer to the ‘Box Hill’ half label? Lacks actual collection date so I’m afraid this record not useful for this research project!
Thanks for flagging this - March would be very early for flowering, but we’ll double check this annotation
No.1. Malvern July 1868 refers to the sad-looking stemless specimen far right (Malvern VC 36/37). No.2. dated 1876 refers to VC23 specimen
I think this one is Heath Fragrant
Common Fragrant
I’m not convinced this is water in the background. We’ll check recorder info. GFH associated with pine woods, & in northwest England, dunes
Yes, BM001128084 lacks the data useful for this project!
It's difficult to be sure whether the 3 specimens here relate directly to the typed info bottom right corner. Also no collection date.
Alas, the address/date on the note here doesn’t help us determine the exact location/date of the collected specimens!
Thank you for this observation - this will be amended
Thank you pjm – we'll edit in our database
Thank for this. I agree locality illegible, and as there is no date for this specimen it is not useful for this project
Lovely photograph!
See previous post. A human - probably this one – will be able to retrieve locality data!
Occasionally the software fails to detect & allocate VC to grid ref – however all photo localities are recorded in the metadata
I don’t think this is the specimen collection date, rather the herbarium date. Requires further investigation...
One would hope there is something in the capsule...hopefully the rest of the plant!
Possibly a continuation sheet? I will alert our curator!
One label dated 1842, the other 1844 - the likely reason for 2 barcodes. That doesn’t help us decide which specimen relates to which label!
Thanks – I’ve recorded this observation
We'll include data for the two collections with dates & barcodes here (no coll. date for ‘Box Hill’ label top/specimen left on this sheet)
One barcode relates to photos/label left, one to specimen/label top, and one to specimen/label bottom - though agree sheet unclear & messy!
Yes, BM001075460 is VC 34
Not at all easy to see, but VC6 (North Somerset) is written small about half way up the right hand side of the sheet
Thanks Richard – I’ve made a note of this
Yes, I think this is correct
Thanks - I've made a note of that
Thanks – I think you are right: Goathland is VC 62 and the VC80 recorded on the sheet is incorrect
Glenquin, and ‘Glauquin’ (a location I’ve seen referenced in botanical literature) in County Clare, Ireland, may be the same place.
BM000933993: on closer examination of the handwriting, I think the collection date could be1836
An interesting sheet with lots of detailed notes – the label top left corner indicates these specimens were confirmed as D. fuchsii in 2014
We think it's a hybrid - most likely between Common Spotted and Southern Marsh
This is Greater Butterfly - well on the way to seed!
Thank you for the link - interesting!
Thanks - I have noted that this sheet carries an illustration, rather than an actual specimen!
Many thanks for this observation for BM001081123: Halstead, Kent should be VC 16, not 19
You are right Mike - I wasn't looking at it wearing my rose-tinted specs!
Thank you for spotting this!
Looks like heath spotted from the habitat, and flower shape and lip markings, but there are no spots on leaves
Yes, difficult – the pollinia (ID feature) are photographed from the side so hard to tell if they are close together or wider apart.
From the flower shape this looks like heath spotted. This one is white and is unmarked with the usual darker pink dots and dashes on the lip
No worries - other people will hopefully tag the insect! Possibly a Malachite Beetle...
Difficult one - but I also think this is Greater Butterfly
This is Common Twayblade (Neottia ovata)
A pyramidal var. albiflora I think
thanks - his sheet needs a a bit of sorting out!
thanks Richard - specimen 'B' need a barcode!
I think this is a white marsh fragrant - lovely!
This is a bee orchid variety which has whitish sepals and a greenish- yellow lip: var. chlorantha
I'd say northern marsh
You are right - Common Twayblade
The specimen on the left is separate from the capsule and label on the right and should have a barcode - thanks for flagging this up
Lovely bee in a forest of wild flowers – a Mike Waller image if I’m not mistaken?!
Beautiful photo of E. palustris!
That's fine. We are ideally after tags for any visible insects so our entom experts can ID - I'm not sure even they can do that from a web!
Thanks pjm19 - this will be amended in the database - we are certainly getting some good herbarium sheet calls today!
Thanks for this observation Richard – yes, BM001165507 should have been recorded as G. borealis - this will be corrected!
Thanks for this. BM001165506 should be logged as G. conopsea – we will amend the database.
Thanks for spotting this - I don't think there is! In fact, there is little info on this sheet to qualify either collection event for VC10
Thanks for this - looks like VC is all we have here with no specific locality other than 'hotel grounds'!
I agree, label data very difficult to decipher. VC H38 is County Down, so the locality might possibly read 'Kircubbin' We'll check this!
Lovely photo of the Marsh Helleborine - complete with visiting insect!
Thanks - we can check the capsule for the label
The labellum markings are there, but are quite pale
Thanks Richard - I've noted this
Likely to be a very pale version of common spotted
Where leaves have a distinctive character e.g spotted or unspotted which may help with ID between similar species, this is included in guide
The label reads: Listera cordata, which is the former name for Neottia cordata (Common Twayblade)
yes, green-winged - the upper two petals have green lines running lengthways
I agree - if spike tip not visible the plant may be more 'in bud' than 'in flower' - I would tag 'in flower' for these
Thanks Richard - we can not assume a VC for this particular specimen!
You need x-ray eyes for this! Bad labelling - we will have to closely examine the sheet to extract date.
For BM001072188 it looks like we will have to check the database. It's possible there maybe an annotation on reverse of sheet
wow - thanks for researching this and for being so thorough!
Well spotted! I have now recorded this
Thank you Richard, this had been recorded
The label may be in the capsule, also the curatorial annotation "2a" in lower rt corner may suggest more than 1 sheet for the colln. event.
yes, not a pure albino, but a very pale form of D. fuchsii and without the leaf spot pigment
Difficult to say which of the butterfly orchids this is without a clear view of the pollen-bearing structures in this image
These are the (somewhat devoured) basal leaves of Common Twayblade, with the emerging flower spike in the centre
Thank you for your observations on these pjm!
Thank you for your observations on these Rich!
Marsh orchids, likely D. incarnata (early marsh) or a hybrid with D. fuchsii (in background). Classify flowering as 'over' for these.
One of the fragrants - Gymnadenia conopsea
This is a confusing sheet - thanks for clarifying which of these numbered collection events you have classified for us.
Thank you - looks like there is a barcode record error in our data! Your observation has been logged
Yes, the specimen is likely to be inside the capsule on this sheet
Thank you for spotting this Richard!
I can't see any orchids in this shot - unless there are some rosettes which are difficult to see
Thanks for spotting this Richard - I agree on the location!
Yes, the three specimens bottom left may have been re-mounted onto this sheet without transferring original annotations!
This blank one is probably a technical glitch i.e. a photo mis-upload - we will check
Looks like an early purple - interesting flower colour!
In this instance, the label and specimen associated with barcode BM-----7222 is data-deficient.
VC "SG" written here is "Sania Guernsey" (previously) The VC for Guernsey is now 0 (zero)
Amended location to CROHAM Hurst
Thanks for this observation - you are right , there are two collection events here.
I agree - this may be a hybrid
I agree - difficult to ID from this image
Thank you - well spotted!
I think these numbers are collection years - however, I will check your query with the curator!
Lovely image of fly orchid
Thank you for spotting this - we have recorded your observation
This is an Early Purple albino variant - very nice!
looks like G. conopsea (common fragrant)
Orchis is the former name for the Dactylorhiza's - a notoriously tricky genus to identify in living plants, let alone as dried specimens!
Thanks Richard for your work on the herbarium sheets; your observations for each sheet have been recorded
This is green-winged - a key ID feature are the horizontal green lines on the upper petals
This is what we call a 'continuation' sheet; these illustrations probably accompany the actual specimen which is on another sheet.
Quite a fewof us have had a look at this image - we don't know what it is!
Could be common spotted - we need to wait for the flowers...
Actually, I don't know why this sheet is even in the dataset - there is no barcode! The mystery will be investigated...
Good Spot. We've had a few images with insects but they can be difficult to see - I'll pass this on to one of our entomologists for ID
Possibly an albino variety of the early purple
Yes, very likely to be Common Twayblade
Probably one of the butterfly orchids
Thank you - we will amend this in the database
White green-winged. This variety can occur in a predominantly purple green-winged population - as on this site in Dorset.
lovely photo of Birds-nest orchid
Two of our museum botanists have identified this one as Dactylorhiza grandis - a hybrid between common spotted and southern marsh
Thank you for spotting this! There are indeed 3 collection events on this sheet and only one barcode. I have just spoken to one of the recent reviewers for this sheet who confirmed that this difficulty here was in tying the individual specimens to the collection data.
Probably a Greater Butterfly rosette
Yes, this is Early purple
Green-winged!
Species name error: BM001164285 is Spiranthes autumnalis
Thanks David!
Thanks for spotting this Richard - specimen on left is G. borealis not G. conopsea - we will amend in the database!
Two of these specimens (R & L) do look like late stage flowering/early fruiting, central specimen less advanced stage. Well spotted!