Entomological labels

 
For example, I show you a few of my labels.

I noticed this discrepancy:
Ukraine, Luhansk region, approx. 5 km from Krasnodon, Provalskaya steppe, Hrushevsky uch., 27.07.1981, A. Zakharenko.
5 km S Krasnodon and Grushevka do not connect. Either this is not the Hrushevsky section of the Provalskaya steppe, or replace the 5 km S of Krasnodon with approximately 15 km SSE of Krasnodon.

Ink from an inkjet printer tends to blur... It is better to use a laser printer and a black gel pen. Even if it is necessary to remount either in water or in an alcohol solution, the text does not float (checked repeatedly, although I still replace the label because the paper "leads")

On the label:
Russia, Orenburg region, Svetlovsky district, Yalpi village, temporary reservoir 2.5 m without vegetation, 02.05.1967, V. Grama
, Svetlinsky district. The place is interesting!

I noticed this discrepancy:
Ukraine, Luhansk region, approx. 5 km from Krasnodon, Provalskaya steppe, Hrushevsky uch., 27.07.1981, A. Zakharenko.
5 km S Krasnodon and Grushevka do not connect. Either this is not the Hrushevsky section of the Provalskaya steppe, or replace the 5 km S of Krasnodon with approximately 15 km SSE of Krasnodon.

In this case, specifying geographical coordinates would help

I was talking about a good inkjet printer. There are special printers for labels and they are inkjet.

In this case, specifying geographical coordinates would help

And there, in general, the link to Krasnodon is unsuccessful - the city is scattered over the so - called blocks (c), where to count from is unclear.

I count from the end of the city closest in this direction.
Of course, the coordinates are better together with the nearest object. There is generally a line with Krasnodon simply superfluous.

In my opinion, your labels are too big, although they are suitable for non-small butterflies. And you have a lot of unnecessary information, such as: Goloseevsky district; Goloseevsky forest-the district did not have to be specified at all; or - Pechersky district; bot. garden of the NAS named after N. N. Grishka - what difference does it make to whom the garden is named? Coordinates are certainly a good thing, but why specify " GPS:"?
I myself use Word for writing, acid-free paper and preferably a good inkjet printer - the most durable and reliable. The labels are small, since the objects of my classes are small, space is saved, but all the information fits on the main and environmental label.
For example, I show you a few of my labels.

"botanical Garden of NAS named after N. N. Grishka" is the official name of one of them.

  [занудно] Національний ботанічний сад ім. Н.Н.Гришка НАН України. I would shorten it to "Botsad Grishka")))

And I would go to "Grishkin" botsad

Кстати, "ботсад ГришкА" - це українською мовою, по русски - "ботсад ГришкО". May be better to write "Gryshko botanic gardens".

  [even more boring] why are there so many gardens?

an option, but for example it doesn't work for my city - there is no railway at all

please tell me what to write on a geographical label if insects are kept at home, and nothing is known about the origin of their progenitors.. well, for example, Madagascar cockroaches.

To be honest, it's hard for me to imagine a name that doesn't fit on the label. isn't it easier to make the label bigger/font smaller?

Well I do not know. I print view labels as fields, enter the view with a pen.

Gentlemen, please explain why you should write "leg." on the label, if the entire label is filled in in Russian? Maybe it would still be more logical to write " call.", or, if this abbreviation seems too long, do not attribute anything at all?

This is all clear, just Latin in a single abbreviation causes some dissonance. Then you can also type geographical names in Latin letters. The very presence of this abbreviation in fact does not make any sense, because it is immediately clear that the geographical label indicates the collector of the material, and on the definitive label, respectively, the person who made the definition.

This is all clear, just Latin in a single abbreviation causes some dissonance. Then you can also type geographical names in Latin letters. The very presence of this abbreviation in fact does not make any sense, because it is immediately clear that the geographical label indicates the collector of the material, and on the definitive label, respectively, the person who made the definition.

this is the situation here.. our highway is being expanded and, accordingly, the adjacent forest was demolished and turned over.. part of the earth came out of the ground on the surface and I found a pupa of a pine hawk moth in this land purely by chance.. so, how would it be on the geo. label to write?

This is all clear, just Latin in a single abbreviation causes some dissonance. Then you can also type geographical names in Latin letters. The very presence of this abbreviation in fact does not make any sense, because it is immediately clear that the geographical label indicates the collector of the material, and on the definitive label, respectively, the person who made the definition.

No.. well, just "where" how to write? "on the side of the road in the forest floor or something?"

I never write "leg" on them, and so everything is clear, why overload the label.

Of course, there is no need to overload, but writing three letters does not play a special role here: especially now, when almost everyone has a ready-made template on their computer.
Recently, by the way, I posted a historical one example such a" non-loaded " label    , what should I do with such a bug now

Vasily, if you don't mind, please send the finished template to my email address nadzor@mail.ru I also can't seem to come to a common denominator.

So write: "here is the situation.. our highway is being expanded and, accordingly, the adjacent forest was demolished and turned over.. part of the earth came out of the ground on the surface and I found a pupa in this land purely by chance"