Talk:MacOwan PRE 5111 (1906)
More actions
Discussion for: MacOwan PRE 5111 (1906) • View • Links • Related changes
Use this page for verification notes, disputes, and action items. Keep narrative content on the article.
Discussion
Evidentiary scope
The database gives the date as March 1906 and the collector as P. MacOwan, and the single word INDIGENARUM stands where a locality should be. The page reads that word as a fragment of Latin label boilerplate, not a place, and the country is blank, so the page asserts nothing beyond South Africa. The catalogue records no habitat, use or note on cultivation, and no image of the label is published. Nothing shows whether the plant was cultivated, grew wild or had escaped. The accession is classified Unknown, and no conservation priority is assigned.
The Botanical Database of Southern Africa publishes no image of this sheet. Its image count is zero, and so is the image count of all 1,361,966 rows in the database: the store is empty, and SANBI's own site still lists plant images among its plans. The accession carries no image until the herbarium supplies a scan.
Georeferencing
No point is given. The database's only locality is INDIGENARUM, a fragment of Latin label boilerplate and not a place, and its country field is blank. The country the infobox gives is the finest place named. An earlier version of this note gave as its reason only that the database has no coordinate.
Editorial treatment
BODATSA writes a PRE accession number into the collector-number field of this entry. PRE 5111 is the herbarium's own number for the sheet, not a number the collector gave the gathering, and the collector-number field carries it as the database has it. Nine Cannabis entries in BODATSA do the same.
This entry is one of two Cannabis rows in BODATSA whose country field is blank, so a query by country misses it. It was found by sweeping the records GBIF codes ZZ.
Source discrepancies
The locality field holds label boilerplate rather than a place. Reading INDIGENARUM as a locality would be an error; reading it as evidence of a Cape gathering would be an inference the catalogue does not support. The sheet needs to be seen.
Source citations remain in the article. Éloise 06:21, 24 September 2026 (+07)