Request - new code table term: arsenic

[Jegelewicz]

Help us understand your request (check below):

• search or data request (help with SQL or provide the specific fields you are trying to retrieve for your collection)
• add a new Github user to the Arctos Users team
• a new barcode series
• a new term for data entry or management
• a change or new report or label
• update to an Agent (split, merge, or other type of change)
• bulkload changes (to Agents, Identifiers, etc that are not already available as a bulkloading tool)
• new feature or otherwise a good idea to make Arctos even better
• quarantine taxon name and suggested replacement (please supply links)
• other

Describe what you're trying to do

I have an instance of detection of arsenic in/on a specimen and would like to add a term to the examined/detected code table. Although I only have one, I think this term could be used more broadly as many biological collections have tested taxidermy for arsenic.

aresenic - Arsenic is a chemical element with the symbol As and the atomic number 33. Arsenic is a notoriously toxic heavy metal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic

[mkoo]

Noting specimens with or exposure to arsenic is a good one-- but sometimes it's not examined or detected-- we know because of part preservation method. Do we need to have the option of two places or just one to note this? (We need some discussion around this please)

[campmlc]

If something was tested for arsenic by a specific method/person/date, it should be clearly specified as an attribute in the examined/detected code table. We may not know at time of cataloging that a particular part was preserved in such a way as to indicate arsenic is present. We certainly do not have that information for our collections. The attribute is designed to indicate a specific test or examination was conducted and results were obtained by said method/person/date.

[campmlc]

Changing priority to high because multiple collections have an urgent need to add terms to the examined/dectected code in a consistent and timely manner.

[dustymc]

Do we need to have the option of two places

There is a near certainty that this would work like any other instance of denormalization: People would find one pathway, assume they've found all of the information, and never find the nth batch of near-identical information. I suppose some subtle distinction for the separation could be made, but the potentially fatal consequences of this seem wildly more important than such hair-splitting.

I do not think that this should proceed.

[Jegelewicz]

we know because of part preservation method

My instance has nothing to do with part preservation. All I have is "tested positive for arsenic"

https://arctos.database.museum/guid/UWBM:Mamm:80797

[mkoo]

Given that it is already in the part attributes, part remarks, let's put this on the AWG agenda for next time so we can have a community discussion! Thx