Talk:CU-MN 20162537 (1959)

Talk

Discussion for: CU-MN 20162537 (1959) • View • Links • Related changes

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

Page scope

CU-MN 20162537 (1959) is about a single collection of cannabis, a seed lot or a herbarium specimen: where and when it was gathered, by whom, and what the sources say about the plants.

Data verification

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

Discussion

Evidentiary scope

The museum's database gives the place as สระบุรี (Saraburi), the collector as Praves Tharakjem and the date as 9 September 1959, and the habitat and soil as ดินปนทราย (sandy soil). The entry names a kind of soil, not whether the plant was cultivated, grew wild or had escaped, and it records no use beyond the names the label carries. The published image is too small to read the label with confidence. The accession is classified Unknown. It is a single gathering and shows no continuing population and no living germplasm holding. No conservation priority is assigned.

The museum publishes one image of the sheet, about 560 by 800 px, and states no licence for it. It is shown here under fair use, with a rationale on the file page.

Georeferencing

The database's place is Saraburi, which it gives as a district and a province and no closer. No coordinate is asserted.

Editorial treatment

The database gives the date in Thai, in the Buddhist Era. The article gives both forms. For these years the conversion is CE = BE - 543.

The database's collector field is ผู้จัดเก็บ, which covers both collecting and keeping. Where it lists several names, the infobox holds the first and the article quotes the whole string, as the wiki does for other multi-collector gatherings. Whether the names are of one person or several, and which are given names, was not established: Thai names in this database carry no comma between a given name and a surname, and the one sheet that does use a comma separates two people that way.

The page is titled by its catalogue number because the source gives no collector's number.

The label's own number, 8753, is legible on the published image, and the collector's number line beside it is not. Neither is in the database.

Source citations remain in the article. Éloise 17:23, 23 September 2026 (+07)