Hi Guy... yes, that's exactly what I meant... I think going through it sequentially is the best way to cover all the red folders and less chance of missing any; however, that comes at a cost.... time! I think going through all the African and Latin American type folders (potentially 120,000/140,000 barcodes??) and checking them one by one will take up a lot of time which could be better allocated elsewhere (i.e. focusing on the other regions which are yet to be been digitised), and then if there is time at the end of the project, then maybe we could go back and double check the regions already covered, or we may end up at the end of 2013 with an incomplete project (i.e. some families completely digitised and others unfinished.

I am sure we will eventually come across an X amount of types that have been missed (human error... it's expected), but personally I don't think the benefit compensates for the cost/time... after all, from what I've heard, apparently there are lots of types that are not in red folders (any one know more on this?)... so technically, we would be missing those types no matter which way we do things. Maybe I'm just rambling on!!

En resumen... I think the best method would be a combination of methods, where we go through the families/regions sequentially, with a genera list (as originally suggested by Kath), but skipping the African and Latin American regions completely. If time allows, we go back to these regions at the end of project for verification. If I had the choice, I think I would rather focus on specific regions rather than doing all regions, as we would individually specialize in our region and get to know collectors, localities, etc. and consequently speed up our overall digitising rate.

Here be my two pennies worth, but it would be interesting to hear everyone else's thoughts, and also if this would work out at the managerial level... is it feasible or does it complicate things?.... thoughts, comments?

Richard