Request for feedback on fossil field guide visual layout

[pefty]

I'm working up a series of fossil field guides for various formations. I'd like to provide a visual indicator of which fossils are rare, which are common, and which are abundant, without getting in the way of the visual layout of the fossils & identifying information. The complete set of categories I am working with is {Abundant, Common, Rare, Very Rare, Common to Abundant, Rare to Abundant, Rare to Common, Present, and Questionable}. Has anyone seen a good way that a field guide of any kind has provided such a visual indicator as a page-wide element of visual layout? Attached is my first draft for the brachiopods of the Zaleski Flint Member of the Allegheny Formation (Pennsylvanian) of Ohio.

 

All feedback welcome! Thanks.

Edited December 22, 2020 by pefty
Added "very rare" category

[FranzBernhard]

Wow! Very nice, good work! And very easy to grasp.

Two aspects:

- Maybe you want to keep the color bars at the left the same width all way down? I see, why they have different width. But at least for me it is a little bit distracting.

- I like the color coding! Ever thought about going from green (abundant) to yellow (common) to orange (rare) to red (present)?

Franz Bernhard

 

[Thomas.Dodson]

Visually it is a pleasing layout. Great Work. I don't recall any layouts quite like this but I would suggest quantifying your categories if you can. I understand this might not be possible for lots of reasons.

 

The best guides that I have read usually have some way of quantifying their categories. I've seen many examples set for particular sites that go something like (2 or less specimens found=rare, 2-5= uncommon, 5-10, 10+, etc.). If you have access to a sizable collection of fossils from this member then you can also quantify rarity based on the amounts in the collection. Obviously this only works with a non-biased sample size (collecting all specimens equally). This is best shoved in a single table/preface/introduction so it wouldn't clutter your illustrations like you mentioned. If you have individual pages in the guide describing specimens then maybe sample size can be added to those pages instead to give a benchmark for the categories.

 

What is the purpose of present? Is it just a lower category than rare? If it is included in the guide and is not questionable then one can assume it is present in the Member. If you're worried about clutter I can see you dropping this category.

[FossilDAWG]

I agree, it is very nice and will certainly be useful to collectors.  I also agree it would be nice to have some idea of what "abundant", "common", "rare" etc mean.  One useful scale I recall is that used for shark teeth on the Elasmo.com web site.  I'll paraphrase a bit (since I don't recall the exact wording) but it goes something like: abundant = multiple specimens found on every trip; common = 1 found every few trips; rare = found about 1 time per collecting season etc.

 

Don

[pefty]

1 hour ago, FranzBernhard said:

Wow! Very nice, good work! And very easy to grasp.

Two aspects:

- Maybe you want to keep the color bars at the left the same width all way down? I see, why they have different width. But at least for me it is a little bit distracting.

- I like the color coding! Ever thought about going from green (abundant) to yellow (common) to orange (rare) to red (present)?

Franz Bernhard

 

Thank you Franz! Yes, good call on width -- I'll make that change. I thought about green-yellow-red but then remembered what trouble that spectral scale causes for red-green-color-blind folks. So hopefully yellow-to-blue works better for all.

[pefty]

59 minutes ago, Thomas.Dodson said:

Visually it is a pleasing layout. Great Work. I don't recall any layouts quite like this but I would suggest quantifying your categories if you can. I understand this might not be possible for lots of reasons.

Will do!

59 minutes ago, Thomas.Dodson said:

What is the purpose of present? Is it just a lower category than rare? If it is included in the guide and is not questionable then one can assume it is present in the Member. If you're worried about clutter I can see you dropping this category.

"Present" is for species I could not find in the field myself but were reported and even figured in publications by trusted paleontologists (even trusted by paleontologists who came after them); "Questionable" is for reports unattached to a published figure and doubtful according to paleontologists who came after them. Definitely could combine these categories if needed, but will keep them separate if I can.

[LabRatKing]

2 hours ago, pefty said:

I'm working up a series of fossil field guides for various formations. I'd like to provide a visual indicator of which fossils are rare, which are common, and which are abundant, without getting in the way of the visual layout of the fossils & identifying information. The complete set of categories I am working with is {Abundant, Common, Rare, Very Rare, Common to Abundant, Rare to Abundant, Rare to Common, Present, and Questionable}. Has anyone seen a good way that a field guide of any kind has provided such a visual indicator as a page-wide element of visual layout? Attached is my first draft for the brachiopods of the Zaleski Flint Member of the Allegheny Formation (Pennsylvanian) of Ohio.

 

All feedback welcome! Thanks.

WOW. I have been working on something similar for my own use but it is all hand drawn and focuses on Millard county...I plan to print them on the backs of my topo maps to save weight and space in my pack---field guides and locations on one sheet! Yours is far better!

 

Only suggestion I would make is that the color coding you used may not transit well to black and white/greyscale printing. Also, and this is tiny, but I'm not certain those colors would work well for folks with color vision difficulties...but I'm 25 years out of date on graphic design.

 

I can assure you have not seen a field guide with such an intuitive format- fossil or otherwise.

Thorp and Covich tried something like this in their magnum opus "Ecology and General Biology of Freshwater Invertebrates" for the near and palearctic keys, but it is not this well thought out. )This five volume and growing monstrosity is pretty much the bible for my field of expertise)

 

The Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha did something like this for their butterflies and moths in the walk through vivarium, but again, it is not this well thought out and only shows dorsal views.

[jpc]

This is cool.  Along with the suggestions made by others about common-ness, I think the rare to abundant needs to be clarified.  Is there a need to separate out "rare to common" and "Rare to abundant"?  Can these two be combined?  Does it mean that at some sites you will find Species X, but at other sites in the same formation you will spend ten years looking for the same darn thing and find only one?  Maybe a catageory that is called "Variable".  

 

Nice photos, btw.

[erose]

"Rare to Abundant" and "Rare to Common" are very confusing, and I am a seasoned collector.   If it is a question of where you are looking, then it would be better to just have notes that state where they would be "Rare" and where they might be abundant.

 

Otherwise, NICE!

[FranzBernhard]

11 hours ago, pefty said:

I thought about green-yellow-red but then remembered what trouble that spectral scale causes for red-green-color-blind folks. So hopefully yellow-to-blue works better for all.

 

10 hours ago, LabRatKing said:

the color coding you used may not transit well to black and white/greyscale printing. Also, and this is tiny, but I'm not certain those colors would work well for folks with color vision difficulties

Both of this concerns would suggest a grey-scale bar, wouldn´t it? It could also save on printing costs, because it is the only colored thing in the plate.

 

Yeah, and the discussion what abundant, common, rare etc. really mean would be endless. Every aspect has its merits and its pitfalls. Such abundant categories are a really tricky thing, depending an so much factors.

 

Well, I have already used that myself - 8 categories for a single, small site . Purely subjective, of course . And it has changed since I erected this, but not very much.

häufig = abundant; selten = rare

sehr = very; extrem = extremely; mäßig = moderately; 

 

 

Franz Bernhard

[pefty]

On 12/23/2020 at 1:11 AM, FranzBernhard said:

 

Both of this concerns would suggest a grey-scale bar, wouldn´t it? It could also save on printing costs, because it is the only colored thing in the plate.

 

Good call, Franz. Here's a version in grayscale, for the Washingtonville Member.

 

Page 1 of 3:

 

Page 2 of 3:

 

Page 3 of 3:

Edited December 26, 2020 by pefty
clarify meaning

[pefty]

On 12/22/2020 at 2:06 PM, LabRatKing said:

WOW. I have been working on something similar for my own use but it is all hand drawn and focuses on Millard county...I plan to print them on the backs of my topo maps to save weight and space in my pack---field guides and locations on one sheet! Yours is far better!

 

Would love to work with you on this

 

On 12/22/2020 at 2:06 PM, LabRatKing said:

Thorp and Covich tried something like this in their magnum opus "Ecology and General Biology of Freshwater Invertebrates" for the near and palearctic keys, but it is not this well thought out. )This five volume and growing monstrosity is pretty much the bible for my field of expertise)

 

The Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha did something like this for their butterflies and moths in the walk through vivarium, but again, it is not this well thought out and only shows dorsal views.

 

These are great possibilities for me to look into -- many thanks.

[FranzBernhard]

6 hours ago, pefty said:

Here's a version in grayscale

Very good! Very pleasing and clear. I like it very much. 

And very good solution with the text within the grey field. 

Franz Bernhard

 

[minnbuckeye]

On 12/22/2020 at 11:48 AM, FranzBernhard said:

- I like the color coding! Ever thought about going from green (abundant) to yellow (common) to orange (rare) to red (present)?

 I too like the color coding vs black/white. My suggestion when multiple colors are posted for a specimen, try going  from yellow to blue  by going from left to right instead of top to bottom. To my eyes it would flow better with the solid colors above and below it.  Maybe it would look cramped but worth a look. (This suggestion does not work with the grey scale) Otherwise your project looks great! 

 

Mike