Talk:COC-IND-MEG-0100000001

Talk

Discussion for: COC-IND-MEG-0100000001 • View • Links • Related changes

Use this page for verification notes, disputes, and action items. Keep narrative content on the article.

Page scope

COC-IND-MEG-0100000001 is an Accession — the atomic unit of documentation representing a specific collection event. All scientific data lives here.

Data verification

Check the main page for documentation tier status. Discuss coordinate accuracy, photo quality, or collection details here.

Discussion

Evidentiary scope

The page rests on the cocogenes.com listing for Meghalaya Khasi Hills, read through three Wayback captures (16 January 2021, 27 June 2022, 6 November 2024); the body text, additional-information table and short blurb are identical across all three, so only the earliest is cited. Title versus body text, checked against the raw saved document (not just the research summary fields): "Meghalaya" and "Khasi Hills" appear only in the listing's page title, breadcrumb, SKU (Meghalaya01) and tags — never in the description body or short blurb, which name only Shillong. The article and this page are written to keep that distinction explicit rather than treat the title as equivalent to a body-text place statement. No district, village or coordinate is named anywhere, and the listing names no collector, farmer or collection date. Tier B: a single source lane (cocogenes.com only; no forum or reseller corroboration found for this exact product name). Éloise 11:10, 23 September 2026 (+07)

Georeferencing

No coordinate is stated on any capture of the listing, so none is entered and show_map is written yes only per house convention. Shillong is named in the body text and is entered as locality. province = Meghalaya rests on the listing's own title/SKU rather than body prose (see Evidentiary scope); this follows the pattern of every other Coco Genes listing in this batch, where the product name states the place of origin, but is flagged here since it is the one case in this lane where the state name never appears in running text. "Khasi Hills" is not a separate administrative unit, so it is not entered in admin_2 even though it is named in the title. Éloise 11:10, 23 September 2026 (+07)

Editorial treatment

• Accession ID. COC-IND-MEG-0100000001. COC for Coco Genes (holder code ruled 2026-09-23); MEG is a new province code minted this batch for Meghalaya (first three letters, per this batch's minting rule). No month or year is stated anywhere in the listing or its three captures, so the ID takes 0000; collection_date is correspondingly blank. Serial 0001: this page is filed ahead of COC-IND-MEG-0100000002 within the shared MEG/0000 bucket because it is the site-catalogue line, taken as primary over the forum-only line sharing the bucket.
• Descriptive name. Meghalaya Khasi Hills General Population follows the collection-page formula (<Line> General Population <Year>) with the year token dropped, since none is stated. The raw listing title, "Meghalaya Khasi Hills", is unchanged from the product name and needed no cleanup.
• Flowering time. The listing states "14+ Weeks"; entered as minimum_flowering_time = 14 with maximum_flowering_time left blank rather than guessed, since the source itself leaves the upper bound open.
• Photoperiod response and perceived introgression level. Left blank. Neither is stated by the listing; per today's ruling, the house-default values RSC pages carry are not extended to this batch.
• Seed quantity. "13 Seeds" (pack size, per the listing's additional-information table) entered as seed_quantity = 13 seeds.

Éloise 11:10, 23 September 2026 (+07)

Possible same-as: Amulya Shillong

The listing's own body text names this cultivar "Amulya shillong" ("named Amulya shillong this cultivar is minty,fruity and herbal smoke..."). A separately catalogued line, Amulya Shillong General Population, is attested only on the Overgrow forum (not found on cocogenes.com under that exact name) and points at the same city and state. "Amulya" is a name, not a place, so it cannot itself resolve the question. Per today's ruling this is not merged: both are drafted as separate accessions, cross-noted here and on the other page, for Éloïse's call on whether they represent the same population or two distinct lots sharing a grower's nickname. Éloise 11:10, 23 September 2026 (+07)

Archived versions

Three Wayback captures of the product page were read: 16 January 2021, 27 June 2022 and 6 November 2024. The title's en dash/hyphen style and the copyright year change between captures; the description body, additional-information table and short blurb (aside from stock-count text) do not. No discrepancy in the substantive content was found. Éloise 11:10, 23 September 2026 (+07)