Barcodes on Insect Specimens
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:46:06 -0400
To: "John T. Longino" <longinoj@evergreen.edu>
From: pick@pick.uga.edu (John Pickering)
Subject: Barcodes on insect specimens
Cc: sackley@compuserve.com, ashe@falcon.cc.ukans.edu, brianb@mizar.usc.edu,
colwell@uconnvm.uconn.edu, christine.deal@intermec.com,
faulzeitler@ascoll.org, Furth.David@NMNH.SI.EDU,
whallwac@sas.upenn.edu, djanzen@sas.upenn.edu, Johnson.2@osu.edu,
mkaspari@ou.edu, scottm@bishop.bishop.hawaii.org,
becky_nichols@nps.gov, Chuck_Parker@nps.gov, msharkey@byron.ca.uky.edu,
cthompso@sel.barc.usda.gov, jugalde@euclea.inbio.ac.cr,
pin93001@uconnvm.uconn.edu, windsord@tivoli.si.edu,
faulzeitler@ascoll.org
Jack,
Code 49 may not be dead. I have a meeting with Sprague Ackley in Athens on
Monday. Sprague is Chief Scientist at Intermec and, by my understanding,
the inventor of code 49. I'm working with him to find a Code 49 solution
that will be acceptable to the museum community as a whole.
Intermec's sales force and literature suggest that Code 49 is no longer
supported. However, according to my understanding through conversations
with Sprague, this is not the case. Intermec's new high-density printer
series (models 3240 and 3440) will print the code 49 labels that we are
currently using and their new imager (model 1470) will read code 49 labels.
What I'm still trying to find out is how to best interface their 1470
imager with our plethora of different software applications and platforms.
This imager currently interfaces through a RS-232 serial port and should,
within 4 months, interface through a USB port. However, I hope that we can
convince Intermec to find us a solution that interfaces through a wedge
reader that appears to our software applications as a keyboard, thus
avoiding the need for each of us to write the software to accept input from
RS-232/USB ports in addition to our keyboards.
If my information is correct and the 1470 imager reads code 49 and the 3x40
printers print the labels, I would recommend that we stick with code 49,
even if a wedge reader is not available for months to come. It would be a
lot easier to stick with our current labels and write software interface
code for each application than to re-label 4 million plus specimens or have
multiple barcodes to read. I also stongly recommend that we keep a unique
institutional identifier in each barcode. This is important when we share
material, as we are. Doing otherwise would be short-sighted and ultimately
a disaster.
I will let you and the others know what transpires during my meeting with
Sprague. Hold off on any final decisions until then.
Cheers,
Pick
>Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:09:24 -0800
>To: "Ugalde, Jesus" <jugalde@inbio.ac.cr>,
> "Brown, Brian" <brianb@almaak.usc.edu>,
> "Kaspari, Mike" <mkaspari@ou.edu>,
> "Pickering, John" <pick@pick.uga.edu>,
> "Furth, Dave" <Furth.David@NMNH.SI.EDU>,
> "Naskrecki, Piotr" <pin93001@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
>From: "John T. Longino" <longinoj@evergreen.edu>
>Subject: barcodes on insect specimens
>Cc: "Colwell, Rob" <colwell@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
>
>
>Below is a discussion of barcodes for insect specimens, and a call to
>action for the museum community. I have sent it to my circle of
>barcode-using colleagues (Jesus, Brian, Mike, Pick, Piotr), Dave
>Furth (as collection manager for Smithsonian; also could you send
>this on to Chris Thompson; I don't have his email), and my colleague
>in ALAS, Rob Colwell. Could you all suggest other interested parties
>I might contact (with emails)? Thanks.
>
>BARCODES FOR INSECT SPECIMENS
>
>*The Problem*
>
>Over the past decade, a number of institutions and projects began
>using barcodes to label individual insect specimens, providing unique
>identifiers for specimens (Thompson, F. C. 1994. Bar codes for
>specimen data management. Insect Collection News 9:2-4.). The hope
>was that this would result in more efficient data capture and
>specimen management. Barcodes come in different flavors called
>symbologies, and scanner hardware must be programmed to recognize
>particular symbologies. INBio chose Code49, a proprietary code
>produced by Intermec, and other institutions and projects have
>followed suit. The ones I know of are the LACM, John Pickering's lab,
>the ALAS project, and Mike Kaspari's lab. Barcodes on insect
>specimens had to be small, and Code49 was one of the first
>high-density barcodes, which would allow a sufficiently large
>specimen code on a sufficiently small label. Reading high-density
>barcodes requires specialized, expensive scanners, and it has always
>been a problem acquiring them. But a larger problem is now evident:
>Code49 never obtained a large market, and is now extinct. The
>existing scanning hardware cannot be repaired or replaced. Intermec
>technical representatives have confirmed this.
>
>INBio is now taking steps to migrate to a new symbology (discussed
>more below). I suggest that the museum community consider this
>problem jointly, rather than each institution acting independently.
>
>*Common Standards*
>
>If the barcode-using entomologists consider this together, we can
>avoid a lot of wheel reinventing and a chaos of competing
>symbologies and inter-institutional incompatibility. Ideally a common
>symbology could be adopted, which would facilitate the exchange of
>specimens. I can envision a Web site that would be an information
>source about symbology, sources of hardware and software, lists of
>institutions or projects using barcodes, label formats or
>institutional codes being used, etc.
>
>If this is already being done please let me know so I can be in the loop.
>
>I have done a bit of research and suggest two symbology options below
>(discussing their pros and cons). If any of you have additional
>suggestions or information, please let me know.
>
>*MicroPDF417 *
>
>This is a high-density symbology developed by Symbol Technologies
>(www.symbol.com). I explained my needs to them for a small barcode
>label that would hold the data content of a current INBio barcode (17
>characters). They sent a sample in the form of a Word file with an
>embedded graphic that was a barcode that would store 22 characters.
>They said if I printed it on a 600dpi laserprinter it would scan with
>no problem. I printed it and got a very clean looking barcode that
>was 11x5mm (INBio's current labels are 22x8mm). I do not have a
>scanner to test it, however. Symbol Technology claims that
>micropdf417 is now the most popular small barcode, with 80-90% of the
>market. Their Web site lists some of the current users of this
>symbology. The list is not large, but one that comes to mind is
>driver's licenses in the Philippines. It is a public domain
>symbology, and apparently many companies are making scanners that can
>read it.
>
>The advantage of this symbology is that more than enough data can be
>stored on a label of an acceptable size to entomologists. The
>disadvantages are at least two: (1) the high-density symbology will
>require more expensive scanners, and (2) regardless of symbology
>there is no high demand for high-density barcodes, so they are prone
>to rapid obsolescence. Today's hot symbology will be tomorrow's
>Code49 (which, of course, could well apply to barcodes in general).
>
>*Code128*
>
>INBio is planning to migrate to Code128. This is one of the most
>common symbologies there is. Any scanner (including cheap ones) can
>read it. The problem is that Code128 is not a high-density symbology.
>INBio has found that they can fit a 10-character code on a label the
>size of their current labels (22x8mm). They plan to have the full
>code printed on the label in human-readable form, including the INBio
>institutional prefix, but only a 10-digit number in the
>machine-readable symbology. They will rely on software to add the
>institutional prefix in their database.
>
>At first I was strongly against Code128, because I think eliminating
>the institutional prefix from the symbology is unacceptable.
>Eliminating the prefix will preclude the barcodes being used when
>specimens are loaned or donated to other institutions. The movement
>of specimens among institutions is an essential component of the
>taxonomic process, and all institutions involved in specimen-based
>data capture must recognize all individual specimen codes, regardless
>of the provenance. The barcode prefix does not indicate ownership,
>but only the origin of the specimen, and all institutions should
>expect to gradually accumulate specimens with diverse barcode
>prefixes. There is already a publication on the insect collections of
>the world, in which every collection has a unique 4-letter code. A
>database of these codes is now on the Web at
>http://www.bishop.hawaii.org/bishop/ento/codens-r-us.html. I
>recommend that these codes be adopted as the standard institutional
>codes for barcodes, and that any new collection or project select a
>unique 4-letter code. For example, INBio is already in the database
>as INBC.
>
>If you include a 4-letter prefix, that leaves only 6 characters on
>INBio's planned Code128 labels. This would allow only a million
>unique codes within an institution. But Rob Colwell alerted me to the
>fact that we did not have to use a base10 system. If we used a code
>based on the 26 letters of the alphabet (similar to record locators
>of airline reservations), a 6-letter code would allow over 300
>million unique codes. A 5-letter code allows over 11 million, and
>would result in a shorter barcode label. If we use a base36 code,
>with both letters and digits, a 5-digit code allows over 60 million
>unique codes. A drawback of using letters and digits is the
>similarity of 1's and l's, which could confound optical character
>readers in the future. But these problems could be dealt with by not
>using characters that look too much alike.
>
>Manuel Zumbado, of INBio, gave me some sample Code128 labels. I tried
>them on my barcode scanner and was amazed at how easily they scanned,
>compared to a Code49 label. Now more than ever I am enthused about
>migrating to a Code128 label.
>
>*Optical Character Recognition*
>
>Everyone tells me that optical character recognition will make
>barcodes obsolete. This makes sense to me and emphasizes the need for
>the human-readable version of the specimen code to be clear on the
>label. I have no information on the availability or practicality of
>this technology at present.
>
>*Retrofitting*
>
>INBio is contemplating an upgrade of their 3 million Code49 labels.
>They propose to obtain a special printer and rolls of polyester
>labels, scan sets of specimens with their old Code49 scanners, print
>out new code128 labels with the same data (omitting the prefix), and
>superimpose the new label over the old one. I think this is ill
>advised.
>
>Barcodes are not archival. The technology will always change, and we
>should plan for machine readability of any symbology to be
>short-lived (optical character recognition perhaps the exception?).
>Brian Brown has pointed out to me that this may not be such a severe
>drawback if material is promptly curated. For the large majority of
>specimens, the barcode will only be read once - at the time of
>identification. When the barcodes are first put on the specimens,
>usually only the first and last of a series are scanned, the rest of
>the specimen records being generated automatically. The moment for
>scanning comes when a series of specimens is identified as a
>particular species. Most specimens are of relatively few common
>species, and their aggregation under a particular species relatively
>secure. Occasional misidentifications may be found, and nomenclature
>may change, but the actual aggregation of specimens in the box will
>not change for the majority. They will reside in the box
>indefinitely, never needing to be scanned again.
>
>If symbology upgrading is going to be necessary every time there is a
>technology change, then we should question the utility of individual
>specimen coding in the first place.
>
>Administrators and informatics people stress the need for
>machine-readable specimen codes for long-term specimen and data
>management, but we should resist letting these accounting functions
>cloud our objective, which is a greater understanding of
>biodiversity. I think it would be far more productive to take
>whatever resources would have gone into relabeling, and direct them
>toward the immediate curation of existing material.
>
>******************************************************
>John T. Longino
>Lab I, The Evergreen State College
>Olympia WA 98505 USA
>longinoj@evergreen.edu
>Ants of Costa Rica on the Web at http://www.evergreen.edu/ants
>Project ALAS at http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/ALAS/ALAS.html
>******************************************************
>Below is a discussion of barcodes for insect specimens, and a call to
>action for the museum community. I have sent it to my circle of
>barcode-using colleagues (Jesus, Brian, Mike, Pick, Piotr), Dave Furth (as
>collection manager for Smithsonian; also could you send this on to Chris
>Thompson; I don't have his email), and my colleague in ALAS, Rob Colwell.
>Could you all suggest other interested parties I might contact (with
>emails)? Thanks.
>
>BARCODES FOR INSECT SPECIMENS
>
>*The Problem*
>
>Over the past decade, a number of institutions and projects began using
>barcodes to label individual insect specimens, providing unique
>identifiers for specimens (Thompson, F. C. 1994. Bar codes for specimen
>data management. Insect Collection News 9:2-4.). The hope was that this
>would result in more efficient data capture and specimen management.
>Barcodes come in different flavors called symbologies, and scanner
>hardware must be programmed to recognize particular symbologies. INBio
>chose Code49, a proprietary code produced by Intermec, and other
>institutions and projects have followed suit. The ones I know of are the
>LACM, John Pickering's lab, the ALAS project, and Mike Kaspari's lab.
>Barcodes on insect specimens had to be small, and Code49 was one of the
>first high-density barcodes, which would allow a sufficiently large
>specimen code on a sufficiently small label. Reading high-density barcodes
>requires specialized, expensive scanners, and it has always been a problem
>acquiring them. But a larger problem is now evident: Code49 never obtained
>a large market, and is now extinct. The existing scanning hardware cannot
>be repaired or replaced. Intermec technical representatives have confirmed
>this.
>
>INBio is now taking steps to migrate to a new symbology (discussed more
>below). I suggest that the museum community consider this problem jointly,
>rather than each institution acting independently.
>
>*Common Standards*
>
>If the barcode-using entomologists consider this together, we can avoid a
>lot of wheel reinventing and a chaos of competing symbologies and
>inter-institutional incompatibility. Ideally a common symbology could be
>adopted, which would facilitate the exchange of specimens. I can envision
>a Web site that would be an information source about symbology, sources of
>hardware and software, lists of institutions or projects using barcodes,
>label formats or institutional codes being used, etc.
>
>If this is already being done please let me know so I can be in the loop.
>
>I have done a bit of research and suggest two symbology options below
>(discussing their pros and cons). If any of you have additional
>suggestions or information, please let me know.
>
>*MicroPDF417 *
>
>This is a high-density symbology developed by Symbol Technologies
>(www.symbol.com). I explained my needs to them for a small barcode label
>that would hold the data content of a current INBio barcode (17
>characters). They sent a sample in the form of a Word file with an
>embedded graphic that was a barcode that would store 22 characters. They
>said if I printed it on a 600dpi laserprinter it would scan with no
>problem. I printed it and got a very clean looking barcode that was 11x5mm
>(INBio's current labels are 22x8mm). I do not have a scanner to test it,
>however. Symbol Technology claims that micropdf417 is now the most popular
>small barcode, with 80-90% of the market. Their Web site lists some of the
>current users of this symbology. The list is not large, but one that comes
>to mind is driver's licenses in the Philippines. It is a public domain
>symbology, and apparently many companies are making scanners that can read
>it.
>
>The advantage of this symbology is that more than enough data can be
>stored on a label of an acceptable size to entomologists. The
>disadvantages are at least two: (1) the high-density symbology will
>require more expensive scanners, and (2) regardless of symbology there is
>no high demand for high-density barcodes, so they are prone to rapid
>obsolescence. Today's hot symbology will be tomorrow's Code49 (which, of
>course, could well apply to barcodes in general).
>
>*Code128*
>
>INBio is planning to migrate to Code128. This is one of the most common
>symbologies there is. Any scanner (including cheap ones) can read it. The
>problem is that Code128 is not a high-density symbology. INBio has found
>that they can fit a 10-character code on a label the size of their current
>labels (22x8mm). They plan to have the full code printed on the label in
>human-readable form, including the INBio institutional prefix, but only a
>10-digit number in the machine-readable symbology. They will rely on
>software to add the institutional prefix in their database.
>
>At first I was strongly against Code128, because I think eliminating the
>institutional prefix from the symbology is unacceptable. Eliminating the
>prefix will preclude the barcodes being used when specimens are loaned or
>donated to other institutions. The movement of specimens among
>institutions is an essential component of the taxonomic process, and all
>institutions involved in specimen-based data capture must recognize all
>individual specimen codes, regardless of the provenance. The barcode
>prefix does not indicate ownership, but only the origin of the specimen,
>and all institutions should expect to gradually accumulate specimens with
>diverse barcode prefixes. There is already a publication on the insect
>collections of the world, in which every collection has a unique 4-letter
>code. A database of these codes is now on the Web at
>http://www.bishop.hawaii.org/bishop/ento/codens-r-us.html. I recommend
>that these codes be adopted as the standard institutional codes for
>barcodes, and that any new collection or project select a unique 4-letter
>code. For example, INBio is already in the database as INBC.
>
>If you include a 4-letter prefix, that leaves only 6 characters on INBio's
>planned Code128 labels. This would allow only a million unique codes
>within an institution. But Rob Colwell alerted me to the fact that we did
>not have to use a base10 system. If we used a code based on the 26 letters
>of the alphabet (similar to record locators of airline reservations), a
>6-letter code would allow over 300 million unique codes. A 5-letter code
>allows over 11 million, and would result in a shorter barcode label. If we
>use a base36 code, with both letters and digits, a 5-digit code allows
>over 60 million unique codes. A drawback of using letters and digits is
>the similarity of 1's and l's, which could confound optical character
>readers in the future. But these problems could be dealt with by not using
>characters that look too much alike.
>
>Manuel Zumbado, of INBio, gave me some sample Code128 labels. I tried them
>on my barcode scanner and was amazed at how easily they scanned, compared
>to a Code49 label. Now more than ever I am enthused about migrating to a
>Code128 label.
>
>*Optical Character Recognition*
>
>Everyone tells me that optical character recognition will make barcodes
>obsolete. This makes sense to me and emphasizes the need for the
>human-readable version of the specimen code to be clear on the label. I
>have no information on the availability or practicality of this technology
>at present.
>
>*Retrofitting*
>
>INBio is contemplating an upgrade of their 3 million Code49 labels. They
>propose to obtain a special printer and rolls of polyester labels, scan
>sets of specimens with their old Code49 scanners, print out new code128
>labels with the same data (omitting the prefix), and superimpose the new
>label over the old one. I think this is ill advised.
>
>Barcodes are not archival. The technology will always change, and we
>should plan for machine readability of any symbology to be short-lived
>(optical character recognition perhaps the exception?). Brian Brown has
>pointed out to me that this may not be such a severe drawback if material
>is promptly curated. For the large majority of specimens, the barcode will
>only be read once - at the time of identification. When the barcodes are
>first put on the specimens, usually only the first and last of a series
>are scanned, the rest of the specimen records being generated
>automatically. The moment for scanning comes when a series of specimens is
>identified as a particular species. Most specimens are of relatively few
>common species, and their aggregation under a particular species
>relatively secure. Occasional misidentifications may be found, and
>nomenclature may change, but the actual aggregation of specimens in the
>box will not change for the majority. They will reside in the box
>indefinitely, never needing to be scanned again.
>
>If symbology upgrading is going to be necessary every time there is a
>technology change, then we should question the utility of individual
>specimen coding in the first place.
>
>Administrators and informatics people stress the need for machine-readable
>specimen codes for long-term specimen and data management, but we should
>resist letting these accounting functions cloud our objective, which is a
>greater understanding of biodiversity. I think it would be far more
>productive to take whatever resources would have gone into relabeling, and
>direct them toward the immediate curation of existing material.
>******************************************************
>John T. Longino
>Lab I, The Evergreen State College
>Olympia WA 98505 USA
>longinoj@evergreen.edu
>Ants of Costa Rica on the Web at http://www.evergreen.edu/ants
>Project ALAS at http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/ALAS/ALAS.html
>******************************************************
>
| Discover Life in America | Science | Unique Identifiers & Barcodes | Corespondence | John Pickering - 8 July, 1999 |