QR-code labels

[Leif-August Kirs]

Hello everyone! 

In Estonian Museum of Natural History we are just start using the QR codes on the entomological labels. Therefore, before designing it, I'd like to know which practices of QR-code label placement is commonly used for entomology collections worldwide. To be more precise, is it placed upside so the QR-code observable (and scannable) from the top (without the need to lift the specimen) or maybe you use it as the bottom label faced downside? 

Placing it upside would seem better way in the first thought, to ease the scanning process and saving the specimen from evitable lifting and moving. On the other hand, placing it downside would save a lot of precious space in the end.

Please let me know about your practice and opinion :)

Also, if you had a picture of your style on labeling, it would be very helpful to see.

Thank you!

Leif-August Kirs

Estonian Museum of Natural History  

[Tapani Hopkins]

Hi,

We've used QR codes for about eight years now in Turku. I would definitely recommend the QR code on top. The whole point is to make it easy to scan: if you put the code underneath, that needlessly slows things down a lot.

After quite a bit of trial and error, we're settling on double-sided labels. QR code + identifier on top, basic info as text underneath. (it took me several years to realise that I can print the labels double-sided, before that I stupidly printed two separate labels :D)

I now place my wasps in regular rows in the insect boxes. (see grainy unclear photo, but you get the idea) It only takes a minute or two to scan the QR codes; we have a barcode scanner which I run down the rows, whole box of 80-90 wasps scanned easily. That's why I prefer the top of the labels for QR codes, it really makes large-scale databasing (i.e. what wasp is in what box) much faster.

I've also attached an example of what our labels look like. QR code + identifier on top of the label, basic info underneath.

- Tapani

-- 
Entomological Collections Network Listserv
ecnweb.org
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ECN-L+un...@ecnweb.org.

[Tapani Hopkins]

.. one other reason for choosing the top of the labels for QR codes: it gives you a lot more options for the future. You may realise, like we did, that these QR codes that we at first added "just because" turn out to be amazingly useful in ways we didn't expect. Would be frustrating to e.g. develop an automatic databasing robot in ten years time, then realise you have to reprint all the labels to have the QR on top where they can be seen.

> On 15.7.2025, at 10:33, Tapani Hopkins <tapani....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We've used QR codes for about eight years now in Turku. I would definitely recommend the QR code on top. The whole point is to make it easy to scan: if you put the code underneath, that needlessly slows things down a lot.
>
> After quite a bit of trial and error, we're settling on double-sided labels. QR code + identifier on top, basic info as text underneath. (it took me several years to realise that I can print the labels double-sided, before that I stupidly printed two separate labels :D)
>
> I now place my wasps in regular rows in the insect boxes. (see grainy unclear photo, but you get the idea) It only takes a minute or two to scan the QR codes; we have a barcode scanner which I run down the rows, whole box of 80-90 wasps scanned easily. That's why I prefer the top of the labels for QR codes, it really makes large-scale databasing (i.e. what wasp is in what box) much faster.
>
> I've also attached an example of what our labels look like. QR code + identifier on top of the label, basic info underneath.
>
> - Tapani
>

> <label_ZMUT12343.png>
>
> <IMG_20250130_121059 wasp labelling.jpeg>

[John Longino]

Covering the primary locality data is a major impediment for those doing global revisions and assessing geographic variation. In my work I am constantly organizing specimens geographically and referring to the locality label to do that. To have the locality covered on a large number of specimens would be a nightmare. An alternative I have seen is to have the barcode beneath the locality label, but sticking out perpendicularly so it can be read from above. The downside of that is it increases the footprint of the specimen. Personally I have always preferred upside down on the bottom, which requires removing the specimen to scan. I don't have that many occasions when I just need to scan a whole box of specimens. Often when I need to scan specimens it is because I am moving them anyway, to feed them into unit trays during identification, or pulling specimens to loan out.

Jack Longino

--

John T. (Jack) Longino

School of Biology, 257 S 1400 E, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112

[Derek Sikes]

We have the code visible from above but as a separate label sticking out behind the data label so both are visible from above. We also use Data Matrix code instead of QR codes because Data Matrix have some better error-checking built in (if memory serves).

Some photos of how we use them on specimens are here.

-Derek

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects, Professor of Entomology
University of Alaska Museum (UAM), University of Alaska Fairbanks

1962 Yukon Drive, Fairbanks, AK   99775-6960
dss...@alaska.edu phone: 907-474-6278 he/him/his
University of Alaska Museum  -  search 400,000+ digitized arthropod records
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological
Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska Entomological Network" at
http://www.akentsoc.org/contact_us

[John Longino]

I use datamatrix too

[Mike Ferro]

First, QR codes are on their way out. We already have machines that can read letters and numbers. You wouldn’t use Magnetic Ink Character Recognition like they do on checks, because we’ve moved beyond that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_ink_character_recognition

But if you want QR codes…

How often will you use the QR reader to capture labels, vs how often will a human reader want to read labels for information?

With QR codes on top, you will have to always consult a computer first – I’m looking for specimens from X province, or X – X dates, etc. – then the human will pick out specimens based on their database number. That will apply to EVERY specimen you have in the entire museum. For example, if a visiting researcher wants to find specimens of a species collected in Tennessee, I would have to go to the database, or train the researcher how to use the database, create a query, email (or text, or print) the list of database numbers to the visiting researcher, then they could go to the drawer and pick out the specimens. OR the researcher could scan every specimen, one at a time, in the drawer (presumably with their phone) and consult the database on each one. This only works for specimens already in the database. OR the researcher could physically lift every specimen to read the information underneath.

 If you only use the QR codes to, say, fill out a loan, then you’ll be working with a VERY FEW specimens at a time. Consider the time spent (let’s imagine over a year) lifting and scanning a specimen for a loan, vs searching the database for specific specimens EVERY TIME (or lifting them, too, because it’s too much trouble to use the database).

You can leave a giant QR code sticking out the front or the side. But that takes up space. That means more unit trays, more drawers, more cabinets, more rooms, and eventually a different building. Again, compare the cost of time spent accessing the few QR codes you scan a year, versus the cost in space. How much does it cost to buy 20% more unit trays, drawers, and cabinets (not to mention another room), vs how much would it cost to pay a student for a few more hours work?

Cheers,

Mike

Michael L. Ferro
Collection Manager, Clemson University Arthropod Collection (CUAC)
Dept. of Plant and Environmental Sciences
277 Poole Agricultural Center
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0310

OFFICE: 307 Long Hall

spongym...@gmail.com (preferred)
mfe...@clemson.edu
Subject Editor: The Coleopterists Bulletin; Insecta Mundi

Natural History Literature Rescue GoodOldPaper.org

[Derek Sikes]

We fit 30 specimens to a square Cal Acad unit tray with our datamatrix codes, the same number the Cal Academy loads into those trays without codes... so the 'safety buffer' is smaller for us, but the footprint & unit cost the same.

When I have more time I can list the many ways we LOVE having these specimens coded as we do - especially for a young dynamic collection with lots of newly acquired specimens coming in every year (all databased before they are labeled - labels printed FROM the database).

-Derek

[Tapani Hopkins]

This does seem to be an advantage of Data Matrix codes, I've understood they can be be made quite a bit smaller than QR. Our QR labels take up a bit more space than earlier labels, though not very much more I'd say. For larger specimens, no real difference.

I'd very much agree with the advantages of having the codes! At first we added them "just because", but now I couldn't imagine managing without them. But this'll depend on what the collection is like and how it's used. For our use, they're essential. We mainly use QR labels for our new incoming material, like e.g. my Ugandan specimens: If I deal with less than a thousand specimens at a time, it's an exception. The idea of first sorting (say) 6000 wasps into genera, then laboriously noting which wasp I placed in which genus and box the old-fashioned way, would horrify me. With our QR labels, it just takes me some 30 minutes and all 6000 are databased in genus and box. (Which is why I like the idea of codes being visible from above, 6000 wasps lifted one at a time for scanning would add hours to the process)

Though bearing in mind what Jack Longino wrote, it may be sensible to add a bit of location etc data next to the QR code if the code is on top. I might consider doing this for our labels too, there is quite a bit of empty space on the top of the label, where the pin goes.

> <label_ZMUT12343.png>
>
> <IMG_20250130_121059 wasp labelling.jpeg>

[Paul Marek]

Hi Leif-August,

We use a (slow, clunky, but useful) code we wrote for generating data matrix codes. https://bdj.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=9583

We put the codes on top of the label stack, so we can quickly know what specimens we have digitized and which ones have not. Getting the specimens digitized is our primary goal at the moment and having them at the top helps speed this. But I have been annoyed when quickly trying to find localities, and the codes conceal a cursory look. 

This how one looks (CC0): https://ecdysis.org/collections/list.php?db=98&catnum=VTEC000006673&includeothercatnum=1&comingFrom=harvestparams

Best,

Paul Marek

https://collection.ento.vt.edu

[Joel Gardner]

One more point in favor of having scannable codes visible on top that I
haven't seen mentioned yet: additional labels are often added to
specimens over time, for instance if they were undetermined at the time
of digitization and later identified, or the identifications change,
they are used for DNA vouchers, imaged, etc.  If the codes are upside
down on the bottom, then whenever you add new labels, you either cover
up the code, or you need to remove and re-pin the label every time.  On
top, the most you ever should need to do is push labels slightly further
up the pin.

In the WSUC collection, I counted how many rows of medium-sized (honey
bee) specimens were typically stored in a tray pre-digitization, and
then sized the QR code labels so that the same number of rows would
still fit post-digitization.  This means that the codes typically do not
stick out far enough to scan without removing specimens from the tray,
unless the other labels are very small.  However, applying these
digitzation labels to every specimen also does not cause them to take up
a huge amount of additional space, which is a primary concern in our
collection.  (And our QR code scanner is not reliable enough to scan
specimens in situ without missing some or scanning duplicates anyway.) 
The catalog numbers printed on these labels are still human-readable in
situ with sufficient space between labels.

You can see an example of these labels in the 1933 handwritten label
email I just sent to the list a few days ago.  The bigger labels with
lower numbers are from before I started working.  Later we started
printing the new, smaller labels.  The red WSU logo isn't really
necessary but serves as a quick and obvious identifier especially if a
researcher has mixed loans from multiple institutions.  (In hindsight, I
wouldn't recommend using a university logo as these are known to change
over time, and universities typically don't like people using outdated
branding.)

Joel Gardner

[Peter T Oboyski]

Example: https://essigdb.berkeley.edu/labels/1750000/EMEC1754954%20Xylocopa%20auripennis%20auripennis.jpg

The Datamatrix symbology we use are less than 5mm x 5mm, with a human readable number next to it. Overall the full labels are approximately the same size as a typical collection label (13mm x 6mm) and therefore does not take up more space. We print our own using ID Automation software. We've been using these labels for over ten years now and have no complaints.

We put them upside-down as the bottom label. As Jack said, it is REALLY annoying to not be able to see the collection data. We need to look at collection data far more often than the catalog number. And it is very quick and simple to pick up the pin and scan the underside when processing loans and returns. An issue, as mentioned, is that the Det label should be the last label. But in reality this is not a problem at all. 

I disagree with Mike about human-readable numbers being the future. With the Datamatrix code the scanner only detects the code. It will be much more difficult for a scanner to separate the catalog number from a label with other text / numbers on it.

I think Harvard has two-sided catalog barcode labels, but I'm not sure how much of an advantage that is (except for fluid preserved specimens) with respect to the cost.

Pete

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SF Chronicle - The Regulars (video)

Peter T Oboyski, PhD

Executive Director, Essig Museum of Entomology
1170 Valley Life Science Building
University of California, Berkeley

https://essig.berkeley.edu

510.643.0804 (work phone)

essig....@gmail.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donate to the Essig Museum Fund

UC Berkeley sits on the territory of xučyun, the ancestral and unceded land of the Chochenyo speaking Ohlone people, the successors of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County.

[Furth, David]

I agree with Jack.  At the Smithsonian (USNM) we use Matrix Codes as the bottom label facing down.  

Also, if codes are used on anything bigger than a Bumble Bee (e.g. most Lepidoptera, etc.), then reading upward-facing codes is not very practical.

David G. Furth, Ph.D.

Emeritus Collections Manager & Research Associate

Department of Entomology

MRC 165, P.O. Box 37012

National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, D. C. 20013-7012  USA

Phone: 202-633-0990

Fax: 202-786-2894

Email: fur...@si.edu

Website: https://naturalhistory.si.edu/staff/david-furth

 

 

---

From: John Longino <jackl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 9:38 AM
To: EC...@ecnweb.org <EC...@ecnweb.org>
Subject: Re: [ECN-L] QR-code labels

 

External Email - Exercise Caution