appsd1400116 1..8 Applications in Plant Sciences 2015 3 ( 5 ): 1400116 Applications in Plant Sciences 2015 3 ( 5 ): 1400116; http://www.bioone.org/loi/apps © 2015 LaFrankie and Chua. Published by the Botanical Society of America. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY-NC-SA). ApApplicatitionsons inin Pl Plant t ScienSciencesces 1 of 8 For more than 300 years, the pressed and dried plant specimen has been the fundamental artifact in the global survey of plant di- versity. Most historians of botany credit Luca Ghini with the for- mal development of techniques to dry plant specimens ( Egerton, 2003 ; Frank and Perkins, 2004 ). His methods worked so well that the 400-year-old herbarium of Ghini’s most renowned student, Andrea Cesalpino, remains intact at the Museo di Storia Naturale di Firenze at Florence. The pressed plant specimen soon became the standard for botanical preservation, storage, and compara- tive study ( DeWolf, 1968 ). Today, approximately 3400 herbaria around the world house an estimated 350,000,000 specimens ( Thiers, 1998 ; Frank and Perkins, 2004 ). Photographs have been little more than an ancillary part of traditional herbarium collections. When photographs of plants fi rst became common in the late 19th century, botanists saw them as a form of botanical illustration rather than as a sort of herbarium specimen and so stored them in botanical libraries rather than as part of the formal herbaria ( Simpson and Barnes, 2008 ). Such a divergent use of photographs and specimens is surprising in that there is a curious and unappreciated connec- tion between botany and the advent of photography. One of the early inventors of photographic methods, William Henry Fox Talbot, used botanical specimens in some of his earliest plates ( Gernshiem, 1986 ). The British botanist Anna Atkins published the fi rst book of photographs in 1843 and titled it Photographs of British Algae: Cyanotype Impressions ( Parr and Badger, 2004 ). The role of photographs as illustrations rather than sci- entifi c artifacts continued into the 20th century. For example, between 1907 and 1922, Ernest Henry Wilson carried to China a large-format Sanderson camera and a set of glass plates with which he composed more than 2400 images. These images re- main at the library of the Arnold Arboretum and some are avail- able online ( Wilson, 2011 ). Most large herbarium libraries have similar holdings of historic photographic prints. The advent of digital photography in the 1990s did not alter the principal role of photographs as a form of illustration rather than of documentation. Examples of fl oras that include on- line digital images include Wisfl ora: Wisconsin Vascular Plant Species ( http://www.botany.wisc.edu/wisfl ora/ ), Michigan Flora Online ( http://michiganfl ora.net/ ), and e-Flora Florida: Field Guide to Florida Plants ( http://www.fl oridaplants.com/Efl ora/ cover.htm ). These photographs, which number in the thousands, are not usually linked to a specimen or to a specifi c record of time and place and so are not treated in the same fashion as herbarium specimens. Indeed, many of the largest plant photo- graphic collections on the Internet are not associated with her- baria at all. For example, the Gymnosperm Database ( http:// www.conifers.org ), the International Aroid Society ( www.aroid .org ), and PhytoImages ( http://www.phytoimages.siu.edu/ ) pres- ent thousands of photographs arranged by individual species. And of course, private individuals have recently fi lled photo- graphic websites such as Flikr or Facebook with millions of digital photographs of plants, often rare, sometimes from iso- lated locations. In the mentioned examples, the photographs are 1 Manuscript received 11 December 2014; revision accepted 3 March 2015. The authors thank the Energy Development Corporation Inc. (Pasig City, Philippines) for access to the Kanlaon Geothermal Site and the Plant and Wildlife Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Quezon City, Philippines) for the collecting permits. 4 Author for correspondence: jlafrankie@yahoo.com doi:10.3732/apps.1400116 APPLICATION ARTICLE APPLICATION OF DIGITAL FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS AS DOCUMENTS FOR TROPICAL PLANT INVENTORY 1 JAMES V. LAFRANKIE JR. 2,3,4 AND ANNA I. CHUA 2 2 Institute of Biology, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City 1100, Philippines; and 3 College of Forestry, Guangxi University, Nanning, Guangxi, People’s Republic of China • Premise of the study: We tested the credibility and signifi cance of digital fi eld photographs as supplements or substitutes for conventional herbarium specimens with particular relevance to exploration of the tropics. • Methods: We made 113 collections in triplicate at a species-rich mountain in the Philippines while we took 1238 digital pho- tographs of the same plants. We then identifi ed the plants from the photographs alone, categorized the confi dence of the iden- tifi cation and the reason for failure to identify, and compared the results to identifi cations based on the dried specimens. • Results: We identifi ed 72.6% of the photographic sets with high confi dence and 27.4% with low confi dence or only to genus. In no case was a confi dent identifi cation altered by subsequent examination of the dried specimen. The failure to identify pho- tographic sets to species was due to the lack of a key feature in 67.8% of the cases and due to a poorly understood taxonomy in 32.2%. • Discussion: We conclude that digital photographs cannot replace traditional herbarium specimens as the primary elements that document tropical plant diversity. However, photographs represent a new and important artifact that aids an expedient survey of tropical plant diversity while encouraging broad public participation. Key words: digital photographs; fl ora; herbarium specimens; inventory; tropics. 2 of 8 Applications in Plant Sciences 2015 3 ( 5 ): 1400116 LaFrankie and Chua—Digital fi eld photographs for tropical plant inventory doi:10.3732/apps.1400116 http://www.bioone.org/loi/apps encourage their procurement and that herbaria should conserve the images in a manner similar to ordinary specimens?” MATERIALS AND METHODS The study site was an accessible but poorly collected mountain in the Phil- ippines, Mt. Kanlaon, Negros Occidental, 1200 m a.s.l. elevation, 10.477 ° N, 123.149 ° E. Between October 20 and 23, 2012, we made 15 transects separated by roughly 50 m and each roughly 100 m long and perpendicular to the main trail. We collected all fertile angiosperms that we could locate and labeled the resulting 113 specimens as Chua 001 – 113. We attempted to take only a single gathering of each species that was evidently different except where the specimens represented different fl oral or fruit stages. We saved material for specimens in triplicate while simultaneously taking a large number of digital photographs. The plants were photographed in the fi eld and on a table prior to preparation as specimens. Two cameras were used: Nikon D40 SLR (Nikon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and Canon PowerShot G12 (Canon USA, Melville, New York, USA) with built-in macro function. Most of the photographs were taken by the junior author, a skilled photographer with limited botanical experience. To make the test a fair refl ection of what an amateur botanist might do on their own, the senior author limited advice on the content of the photos to the recommendation that all plant parts be photographed with maximum magnifi cation, that parts be dissected wherever possible, and that a scale be included. Approximately 1238 photographs were taken at a size of 2500 by 3500 pixels. They were immediately sorted, matched to collection numbers, and then copied to external storage. The speci- mens themselves were pressed lightly in newspaper and temporarily preserved with denatured alcohol. The specimens were sent back to the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, where they were pressed, dried, labeled, and mounted in a conventional fashion. Specimens are stored at the Jose Vera Santos Memorial Herbarium, University of the Philippines (PUH), with one duplicate at the Philippine National Herbarium (PNH) and a third for distribution. The senior author examined the 113 sets of photographs with the aim of match- ing the images to a known species and type specimen in consultation with a cur- rently available taxonomic reference. Specialists were consulted in three cases: orchids were reviewed by W. Suarez of the Philippines; fi gs by L. Rodriguez, at the University of the Philippines, Diliman; and Cyrtandra J. R. Forst. & G. Forst. (Gesneriaceae) by G. Bradley, Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew. The level of confi - dence of the identifi cation was recorded as follows: (1) confi dent identifi cation to species; (2) identifi cation to species but with low confi dence, further study of the specimens is needed; (3) identifi cation to genus only. The next category described the reasons for a failure to identify the photographs to species, that is, the reason they were placed in categories 2 and 3. These were either (1) details needed for identifi cation not evident in the photographs, or (2) taxonomy of the genus not suffi ciently known for identifi cation. The specimens were then examined and identifi ed in consultation with the collections of PUH and PNH. RESULTS We found that 72.6% of the photographic sets could be iden- tifi ed to species with high confi dence, 8% to a species with low confi dence, and 19.4% could be identifi ed only to genus (Appendix 1). Of the species identifi cations made with high con- fi dence, none were altered by subsequent examination of the speci- mens themselves. That may surprise some botanists, especially in so far as many of the plants might be considered exceedingly rare or poorly known from a global perspective. However, these plants were locally well known and readily identifi ed by any bota- nist familiar with the Philippine fl ora. The genus Saurauia Willd. (Actinidiaceae) is species-rich and is sometimes diffi cult to iden- tify; however, Chua 002 and Chua 104 were readily identifi ed to the locally abundant S. negrosensis Elmer by comparison with the type specimen Elmer 10139 from southern Negros ( Fig. 1 ) . Three specimens ( Chua 016 , Chua 027 , and Chua 041 ) were identifi ed as Mackinlaya celebica (Harms) Philipson (Apiaceae). This small tree, enigmatic in phylogenetic position and all but unknown in ecology, proved to be one of the most abundant small trees at Mt. Kanlaon ( Fig. 2 ) . It was confi dently identifi ed not treated as herbarium specimens; that is, they are not stored and managed by a trusted institution and linked with full docu- mentary information comparable to label data. There is no stan- dard method for citing such digital images and so they are rarely mentioned in taxonomic revisions even though they often docu- ment details of morphology and habit not evident in the dried specimens. Although photographs were seen primarily as illustrations, they also served the critical scientifi c role in diversity research as documentation of type specimens. Even before the promul- gation of rules for nomenclatural types at the end of the 19th century ( Hitchcock, 1905 ; Swingle, 1913 ; Daston, 2004 ), type specimens had become the essential element to resolve the ever-expanding problems of synonymy. However, the world- wide distribution of types limited access among scientists; transport was dangerous and hand tracing was ineffi cient. Pho- tographs offered a solution. The early efforts of Swingle and Swingle (1916) and others were soon expanded by botanists such as J. Francis Macbride, who traveled to Europe to photograph nomenclatural types. Macbride collected more than 40,000 pho- tographic negatives, which are currently maintained at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago ( Grimé and Plowman, 1986 ). That same era saw the use of microfi che photography to record many classic herbaria. These worthy efforts all pale in comparison to the events that followed the twin birth of digital photography and the Internet in the 1990s, whereby type speci- mens were quickly recorded and immediately and globally viewed ( Ariño and Galicia, 2005 ). This worldwide effort is currently led by the JSTOR Global Plants project ( https://plants.jstor.org/ ), which partners more than 200 herbaria and aims to index the location of more than 1.3 million type specimens. Photographic standards for type images have now been published ( Häuser et al., 2005 ), although Vollmar et al. (2010) describe the diverse impediments to further advance. A few herbaria use these digi- tal tools to go beyond the limits of types and have made digital images of their general collections. The New York Botanical Garden currently provides a digital image for more than 1.5 mil- lion specimens and scans an additional 100 specimens per hour ( New York Botanical Garden, 2013 ). In addition to images of dried specimens, some herbaria store digital images that were taken of living plants before the photo- graphed plant was pressed and mounted. The images are then coded and stored as a linked component to the specimen. Two examples are the Missouri Botanical Garden collection of photo- graphs of Madagascar plants available through the web portal Tropicos ( http://www.tropicos.org/ ) and Robin Foster’s extensive collection of fi eld photographs available online through the Field Museum’s Tropical Plant Guides ( http://fm2.fi eldmuseum.org/ plantguides/color_images.asp ). These exceptional examples could be more widely imitated. Baskauf and Kirchoff (2008) rec- ommended that sets of photographs that illustrate a single plant could be treated in a way identical to a conventional herbarium specimen if the images were of high quality and with detail ade- quate for accurate identifi cation. They pointed out that such digi- tal collections could fulfi ll many of the roles played by traditional specimens such as to document the distribution and morphologi- cal variation of known species. However, to date, few herbaria have aggressively pursued this opportunity. Every experienced botanist knows that digital photographs suffer limitations compared with conventional scientifi c speci- mens. The question we pose here with particular relevance to the unexplored tropics is, “Are high-quality digital photographs of living plants of suffi cient scientifi c value that herbaria should Applications in Plant Sciences 2015 3 ( 5 ): 1400116 LaFrankie and Chua—Digital fi eld photographs for tropical plant inventory doi:10.3732/apps.1400116 3 of 8http://www.bioone.org/loi/apps photograph did not show a key part, for example, the fl oral de- tails of orchids. Species of the genus Ardisia Sw. (Primulaceae) were more easily identifi ed by the dry rather than fresh leaves, while the genus Lasianthus Jack (Rubiaceae), despite its recent revision for the Philippines ( Zhu et al., 2012 ), required details of the fl ower not seen in some of our photographs. We might also emphasize our fi nding that single photographs were rarely ade- quate for a sound determination. A combination of photographs taken of the different plant parts at different scales was required. The current poverty of the relevant taxonomy was important in 11 out of 31 cases (35.5%). The photographs appeared to be of suffi cient detail to allow a sound identifi cation if more was known about the genus. An example was the genus Cyrtandra , which is characterized by a large number of species that are very narrowly distributed; many species remain undescribed. A recent review of Cyrtandra in Palawan Island, Philippines ( Atkins and Cronk, 2001 ), found 12 species present of which 10 were island endemics, fi ve species were already described, a further three species and one variety were described as new, and the remain- ing four taxa were likely new but required better collections. In Mt. Kanlaon, we found fi ve species of Cyrtandra in fl ower or fruit, of which only one could be assigned to a species. For an- other three species, we were reasonably confi dent that they are new species and have sent the duplicate specimens to Kew for incorporation in the ongoing regional revision. DISCUSSION Had the senior author not gone to Mt. Kanlaon and had re- ceived nothing but the photographic sets, our herbarium would according to the study by Philipson (1979) . Specimen Chua 024 was readily identifi ed to the variable and widespread montane species Arisaema polyphyllum (Blanco) Merr. (Araceae) by comparison with the well-distributed specimen Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 460 . Specimen Chua 028 was easily identifi ed to Aquilaria cumingiana (Decne.) Hallier f. (Thymelaeaceae), a singular relative of the agarwood or gharu trees that is wide- spread and abundant in the Philippines. A confi dent identifi cation did not imply the absence of taxo- nomic controversy. For example, collection Chua 057 was read- ily identifi ed within the species-rich genus Medinilla Gaudich. (Melastomataceae) to the species M. monantha Merr. It is charac- terized by a single fl ower per infl orescence and matches Merrill’s (1908) description and the type collection of Clemens 1136. How- ever, contrary to Merrill’s (1908) segregation, Regalado (1995) combined this with the regionally widespread and morphologi- cally variable species Medinilla myrtiformis (Naudin) Triana. The situation in Piper L. (Piperaceae) offered a contrary exam- ple. Quisumbing (1930) recognized 92 species of Piper in the Philippines; almost all were national endemics and many from single locations. Photographs were inadequate to identify species according to his treatment because it required careful microscopic study of the fl owers. However, Gardner (2006) reduced these 92 species to 20, of which only one is endemic. Gardner’s treat- ment allowed most of our photographic sets to be identifi ed within his broad regional species. Failure to identify specimens from photographs was due to in- adequate photographs in 20 cases, or 64.5% of the 31 collections not confi dently identifi ed to species. We should emphasize that “inadequate photographs” did not imply that they were techni- cally poor with regard to focus or magnifi cation, rather the Fig. 1. Photographic set of Saurauia negrosensis Elmer (Actinidiaceae), specimen Chua 002 . (A) Habit. (B) Leaves and fl ower position, scale. (C) Twig apex and glands. (D) Dissected fl ower. (E) Flower arrangement at old leaf scars. 4 of 8 Applications in Plant Sciences 2015 3 ( 5 ): 1400116 LaFrankie and Chua—Digital fi eld photographs for tropical plant inventory doi:10.3732/apps.1400116 http://www.bioone.org/loi/apps overexploited by ornamental plant enthusiasts and for which new collections are unwarranted. Photographs of this completely unmistakable lily would add to the extensive geographic survey of the remaining populations by Balangcod et al. (2011) . A re- lated case would be the ecologically critical task of document- ing the distribution of noxious weeds. It is fi nancially impractical for a poorly funded tropical herbarium to fi ll its shelves with weeds such as Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms (Pontederiaceae). A single photograph with date, location, and observer would be adequate to build a national record of distribution. In the United States, such a digital program is already underway in the Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System at the Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health at the University of Georgia ( Rawlins et al., 2011 ). A comparison of the merits and defi ciencies of specimens vs. photographic sets is most easily compiled as a simple table ( Box 1 ) . A few points bear further comment. The fi rst and per- haps most obvious question lies in the relative cost effi ciency of photographs vs. collections. A formal comparison is not easily made. Modern cameras make good photography astonishingly easy, and yet the time needed to take an entire set of high-quality photographs will depend on the experience of the photogra- pher, the number of macro photographs required, and also con- ditions such as rain or darkness. In some circumstances, to simply collect a specimen is faster. On the other hand, collec- tions in duplicates of 10 or more also requires drying, printing labels, sorting, and distributing, which can be time consuming. Despite our inability to quantify costs and benefi ts, one aspect of relative effi ciency merits a note. Almost all of the present specimens in the Philippine herbaria were made by people em- ployed for that task, either as professional collectors or as scientists still have reliable documentation for the presence of more than 70 species at a previously unexplored site. We would also have a wealth of new morphological data on phenology, ecology, and fl oral and fruit color. Even photographs that cannot be identifi ed to species proved valuable. For example, the three species of Cyrtandra that were not identifi ed were nonetheless of suffi cient quality to allow a confi dent assertion that they are likely new spe- cies. This occurrence is not unusual. During a recent national re- view of the genus Dillenia L. (Dilleniaceae), we noted on the Internet a set of high-quality photographs of a species with yel- low fl owers from a poorly collected part of Luzon and readily determined this to be a species that could not be accommodated in the last regional revision of the genus ( Hoogland, 1952 ). The exact location is known and efforts are now underway to make a formal collection and so provide the species with a name. The obvious question many might ask is “Why take a set of photographs and not make a voucher collection?” There are several instances where conventional specimens cannot or should not be made. First of all, under Philippine law, specifi - cally Republic Act 9147, the collection of plant specimens for any reason by any person requires acquisition of a set of permits and letters of prior informed consent before permission is granted. A second set of permits is required to transport the specimens within the country. This process, which applies to Philippine citizens as well as international visitors, is compul- sory and is always followed in the case of well-planned ex- peditions. Such demands, however, preclude collections by individuals who travel and explore on the spur of the moment; in such circumstances, it is easier to simply take photographs. Secondly, we must note the case of rare and endangered spe- cies such as Lilium philippinense Baker (Liliaceae), which is Fig. 2. Photographic set of Mackinlaya celebica (Harms) Philipson (Apiaceae), specimens Chua 016 and Chua 041 . (A) Fruit. (B) Dissected fruit. (C) Infl orescence. (D) Flower. (E) Upper side of leaf. (F) Lower surface of leaf. Applications in Plant Sciences 2015 3 ( 5 ): 1400116 LaFrankie and Chua—Digital fi eld photographs for tropical plant inventory doi:10.3732/apps.1400116 5 of 8http://www.bioone.org/loi/apps is distributed and studied by an expert. Of the four classic 19th- century collections from the Philippines, only those of Hugh Cum- ings have had a signifi cant impact on our knowledge of local plants. The collections of the Malaspina Expedition include the specimens of Thaddäus Haenke, which are chiefl y in Prague and have had a mostly European distribution and only a modest study by Presl (1830) , while the estimated 10,000 collections of Luis Née are presumably still in Madrid and have had almost no distribution or study. Sebastian Vidal’s 14,000 collections from the 1880s are in Madrid ( Calabrese and Velayos, 2009 ), and many are still being studied with important effect. A recent review of Vidal’s collections of Fabaceae found that these cen- tury-old specimens included fi ve species not previously doc- umented for the country ( de la Estrella et al., 2007 ). Finally, we should emphasize that the inclusion of a broad base of plant photographers has a social consequence far be- yond the scientifi c value of their documentation. The Philip- pine herbaria were built by professional botanists, with little or no role played by the general public. If photographs were treated as specimens then a larger sector of the population could contribute to the national program of inventory and enumeration and thereby promote a greater appreciation of plant diversity. A recent example of this social movement is found in Co’s Digital Flora of the Philippines ( http://www.philippineplants .org/ ), where more than 5000 members share photographs on a daily basis ( Barcelona et al., 2013 ). The best of these photo- graphs are stored and displayed at the website PhytoImages hosted at Southern Illinois University ( http://www.phytoimages .siu.edu/ ). who collected as a part of their work. Photographs could be contributed by hundreds of volunteers at their own expense. A second point of comparison of photographs and specimens is the sometimes-unappreciated fact that much of the taxonomic literature of the past two centuries is largely based on the her- barium study of dried specimens rather than upon the living plants. Even such a renowned fi eld botanist as E. D. Merrill would sometimes compose a monograph, such as his study of Microtropis Wall. ex Meisn. (Celastraceae), and confess that he had never encountered a living plant of that genus ( Merrill and Freeman, 1940 ). Consequently, many of the characters employed in plant recognition and identifi cation are restricted to dried material. Leaf color and texture are especially notable in this regard. In a contrasting way, Basset et al. (2000) and Thomas et al. (2007) found that in working with fi eld infor- mants in ethnobotany, color photographs were much more likely to be identifi ed than were dried specimens. A third point of comparison is the wealth of morphological detail that is evident in photographs and lost in dried specimens. Photographs can record three-dimensional branching patterns of an infl orescence, the shape and color of fragile fl oral parts, and the presence and color of exudate. This is perhaps generally true for plants but is an especially common problem in mono- cotyledons of the tropics, most notably the Zingiberales , Ara- ceae, Orchidaceae, and Arecaceae. A fourth important point of contrast between photographs and specimens lies in the rapidity with which new fi ndings can be distributed to the scientifi c community. It is not uncommon for years or even decades to pass before a herbarium specimen Photographs Herbarium specimens Disadvantages Advantages Not subject to novel or more detailed scrutiny. Subject to reinvestigation with novel microscopic and chemical methods, even molecular-based identifi cation. Scale must be included; even with a scale, distortion of size and shape is possible. Scale is always clear. Cannot be a type of a new species. The required basis for describing new species. Living plants are often not amenable to existing keys and descriptions—linking fresh and dried characters requires vouchering specimens. Most descriptions and keys in the tropics are based on dried specimens; many characters critical for initial identifi cation are evident only on drying (e.g., dry leaf color). Advantages Disadvantages All parts of the plant can be recorded—habit, bark, wood, twigs, nodes, reproductive parts. Typical specimens include only a fragment of the living plant. Long-lasting, can be duplicated without limit. Unique, subject to decay or destruction. Preserves color and complex shape. Shape and color are greatly modifi ed or lost upon drying. Storage and curation is of modest cost. Storage and curation are costly in space and time. Immediately available. Months, sometimes years or decades before the international community can evaluate the specimen. Available to everyone with Internet access. Even if Internet access is not available, CD-ROMs or fl ash drives make collections accessible. Restricted to individuals with access to herbaria. In general, permits are not required for photographs. In many countries, permits are required to make specimens. A photographer living nearby has repeated opportunities to make a photographic record. The episodic and infrequent fl owering of tropical plants means that conventional expeditions can only gather a small portion of the local fl ora. More than ever before, good photographs can be taken by anyone with a camera and minimal training. Good-quality specimens are usually prepared only by a professional botanist or plant collector. Box 1. Comparison of the merits and defi ciencies of photographs and traditional plant specimens. 6 of 8 Applications in Plant Sciences 2015 3 ( 5 ): 1400116 LaFrankie and Chua—Digital fi eld photographs for tropical plant inventory doi:10.3732/apps.1400116 http://www.bioone.org/loi/apps This study does not suggest that professional botanists no longer make specimens. To make specimens and to study them in a herbarium is still the only road to a deep appreciation of plant diversity. Furthermore, new species require a specimen as the type, and new observations often require microscopic study of specimens or careful quantitative measurements. We might emphasize again that individual snapshots taken in trop- ical forests are almost always inadequate for sound documenta- tion. What can be taken away from this study is that sets of good-quality photographs by amateur botanists yield signifi - cant social and scientifi c value and that they merit conservation by tropical herbaria. LITERATURE CITED APG III . 2009 . An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group clas- sifi cation for the orders and families of fl owering plants: APG III. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 161 : 105 – 121 . ARIÑO , A. H. , AND D. GALICIA . 2005 . Taxonomic-grade images. In C. L. Häuser, A. Steiner, J. Holstine, and M. J. Scoble [eds.], Digital imag- ing of biological type specimens: A manual of best practice, 41–55. European Network for Biodiversity Information, Stuttgart, Germany. ATKINS , H. , AND Q. C. B. CRONK . 2001 . The genus Cyrtandra (Gesneri aceae) in Palawan, Philippines. Edinburgh Journal of Botany 58 : 443 – 458 . BALANGCOD , T. D. , V. C. CUEVAS , I. E. BUOT , AND A. K. BALANGCOD . 2011 . Geographic distribution of Lilium philippinense Baker (Liliaceae) in the Cordillera Central Range, Luzon Island, Philippines. Taiwania 56 : 186 – 194 . BARCELONA , J. F. , D. L. NICKRENT , J. V. LAFRANKIE , J. C. CALLADO , AND P. B. PELSER . 2013 . Co’s Digital Flora of the Philippines: Plant identi- fi cation and conservation through cybertaxonomy. Philippine Journal of Science 142 : 57 – 67 . BASKAUF , S. J. , AND B. K. KIRCHOFF . 2008 . Digital plant images as speci- mens: Toward standards for photographing living plants. Vulpia 7 : 16 – 30 . BASSET , Y. , V. NOVOTNY , S. E. MILLER , AND R. PYLE . 2000 . Quantifying biodiversity: Experience with parataxonomists and digital photogra- phy in Papua New Guinea and Guyana. Bioscience 50 : 899 – 908 . CALABRESE , G. M. , AND M. VELAYOS . 2009 . Type specimens in the Vidal Herbarium at the Real Jardín Botánico, Madrid. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 159 : 292 – 299 . DASTON , L. 2004 . Type specimens and scientifi c memory. Critical Inquiry 31 : 153 – 182 . DE LA ESTRELLA , M. , G. M. CALABRESE , B. CAMARA , AND M. VELAYOS . 2007 . Leguminosae of Philippines in the Vidal herbarium at Real Jardín Botánico, Madrid. Nordic Journal of Botany 25 : 41 – 52 . DEWOLF , G. P. 1968 . Notes on making a herbarium. Arnoldia 28 : 8 – 9 . EGERTON , F. N. 2003 . A history of the ecological sciences, part 10: Botany during the Italian Renaissance and beginnings of the scientifi c revolu- tion. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 84 : 130 – 137 . FRANK , M. S. , AND K. D. PERKINS . 2004 . Herbaria and herbarium specimens. University of Florida Herbarium. Website http://www.fl mnh.ufl .edu/ herbarium/herbariaandspecimens.htm [accessed 19 February 2013]. GARDNER , R. O. 2006 . Piper (Piperaceae) in the Philippine Islands: The climbing species. Blumea 51 : 569 – 586 . GERNSHIEM , H. 1986 . A concise history of photography, 3rd ed . Dover Publications, Mineola, New York, USA. GRIMÉ , W. E. , AND T. PLOWMAN . 1986 . Type photographs at Field Museum of Natural History. Taxon 35 : 932 – 934 . HÄUSER , C. L. , A. STEINER , J. HOLSTEIN , AND M. J. SCOBLE . 2005 . Digital imaging of biological type specimens. A manual of best practice . European Network for Biodiversity Information, Stuttgart, Germany. HITCHCOCK , A. S. 1905 . Nomenclatorial type specimens of plant species. Science 21 : 828 – 832 . HOOGLAND , R. D. 1952 . A revision of the genus Dillenia. Blumea 7 : 1 – 145 . MERRILL , E. D. 1908 . New Philippine plants from the collections of Mary Strong Clemens, I. Philippine Journal of Science 3 : 129 – 165 . MERRILL , E. D. , AND F. L. FREEMAN . 1940 . The old world species of the Celastraceous genus Microtropis Wallich. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 73 : 271 – 307, 309–310 . NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN . 2013 . The C.V. Starr virtual herbarium picks up momentum: Digitization at The New York Botanical Garden. Website http://www.nybg.org/science/new_20120926.php [accessed 27 February 2015]. PARR , M. , AND G. BADGER . 2004 . The photobook: A history, Vol. 1 . Phaidon, London, United Kingdom. PHILIPSON , W. R. 1979 . Flora Malesiana: series 1. Spermatophyta. Flowering plants: vol. 9, part 1. Revisions. Araliaceae 1: 1–105. Foundation Flora Malesiana, Leiden, The Netherlands. PRESL , C. B. 1830 . Reliquiae Haenkeanae . J. G. Calve, Prague. QUISUMBING , E. 1930 . Philippine Piperaceae. Philippine Journal of Science 43 : 1 – 246 . RAWLINS , K. A. , J. E. GRIFFIN , D. J. MOORHEAD , C. T. BARGERON , AND C. W. EVANS . 2011 . EDDMapS: Invasive plant mapping handbook . Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, University of Georgia, Tifton, Georgia, USA. REGALADO , J. C. 1995 . Revision of Philippine Medinilla (Melastomataceae). Blumea 40 : 113 – 193 . SIMPSON , N. , AND P. G. BARNES . 2008 . Photography and contemporary bo- tanical illustration. Curtis’s Botanical Magazine 25 : 258 – 280 . SWINGLE , W. T. 1913 . Types of species in botanical taxonomy. Science 37 : 864 – 865 . SWINGLE , W. T. , AND M. K. SWINGLE . 1916 . The utilization of photographic methods in library research work, with special reference to the natural sciences . Bulletin of the American Library Association 10 : 194 – 199 . THIERS , B. M. 1998 onward (continuously updated). Index Herbariorum. New York Botanical Garden. Website http://sweetgum.nybg.org/ih/ [accessed 3 July 2012]. THOMAS , E. , I. VANDEBROEK , AND P. VAN DAMME . 2007 . What works in the fi eld? A comparison of different interviewing methods in ethnobotany with special reference to the use of photographs. Economic Botany 61 : 376 – 384 . VOLLMAR , A. , J. A. MACKLIN , AND L. FORD . 2010 . Natural history speci- men digitization: Challenges and concerns. Biodiversity Informatics 7 : 93 – 112 . WILSON , E. H. 2011 . Magnifi cent trees: 100 of Ernest Henry Wilson’s fi nest images of trees. Website http://arboretum.harvard.edu/library/image- collection/botanical-and-cultural-images-of-eastern-asia/magnifi cent- trees/ [accessed 23 February 2015]. ZHU , H. , M. C. ROOS , AND C. E. RIDSDALE . 2012 . A taxonomic revision of the Malesian species of Lasianthus (Rubiaceae). Blumea 57 : 1 – 102 . http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/herbarium/herbariaandspecimens.htm http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/herbarium/herbariaandspecimens.htm http://arboretum.harvard.edu/library/imagecollection/botanical-and-cultural-images-of-eastern-asia/magnificent-trees/ http://arboretum.harvard.edu/library/imagecollection/botanical-and-cultural-images-of-eastern-asia/magnificent-trees/ http://arboretum.harvard.edu/library/imagecollection/botanical-and-cultural-images-of-eastern-asia/magnificent-trees/ Applications in Plant Sciences 2015 3 ( 5 ): 1400116 LaFrankie and Chua—Digital fi eld photographs for tropical plant inventory doi:10.3732/apps.1400116 7 of 8http://www.bioone.org/loi/apps Collection Identifi cation a Family b ID quality c Reason for failure d Chua 001 Ophiorrhiza oblongifolia DC. Rubiaceae 1 Chua 002 Saurauia negrosensis Elmer Actinidiaceae 1 Chua 003 Saurauia trichophora Quisumb. Actinidiaceae 1 Chua 004 Curculigo capitulata (Lour.) Kuntze Hypoxidaceae 1 Chua 005 Spathoglottis plicata Blume Orchidaceae 1 Chua 007 Calliandra calothyrsus Meisn. Fabaceae 1 Chua 008 Litsea quercoides Elmer Lauraceae 1 Chua 009 Sambucus javanica Reinw. ex Blume Adoxaceae 1 Chua 010 Medinilla involucrata Merr. Melastomataceae 1 Chua 011 Elatostema whitfordii Merr. Urticaceae 1 Chua 012 Elatostema spinulosum Elmer Urticaceae 1 Chua 015 Syzygium panayense (Merr.) Merr. Myrtaceae 1 Chua 016 Mackinlaya celebica (Harms) Philipson Apiaceae 1 Chua 017 Aglaia elliptica Blume Meliaceae 1 Chua 021 Piper decumanum L. Piperaceae 1 Chua 022 Piper abbreviatum Opiz Piperaceae 1 Chua 023 Glochidion merrillii C. B. Rob. Phyllanthaceae 1 Chua 024 Arisaema polyphyllum (Blanco) Merr. Araceae 1 Chua 026 Mycetia javanica (Blume) Korth. Rubiaceae 1 Chua 027 Mackinlaya celebica (Harms) Philipson Apiaceae 1 Chua 028 Aquilaria cumingiana (Decne.) Ridl. Thymelaeceae 1 Chua 029 Clerodendrum minahassae Teijsm. & Binn. Lamiaceae 1 Chua 030 Alpinia haenkei C. Presl Zingiberaceae 1 Chua 034 Solanum lasiocarpum Dunal Solanaceae 1 Chua 037 Codiaeum luzonicum Merr. Euphorbiaceae 1 Chua 038 Alyxia sibuyanensis Elmer Apocynaceae 1 Chua 040 Goodyera rubicunda (Blume) Lindl. Orchidaceae 1 Chua 041 Mackinlaya celebica (Harms) Philipson Apiaceae 1 Chua 043 Ophiorrhiza oblongifolia DC. Rubiaceae 1 Chua 044 Lycianthes banahaensis (Elmer) Bitter Solanaceae 1 Chua 047 Elatostema whitfordii Merr. Urticaceae 1 Chua 050 Pipturus arborescens (Link) C. B. Rob. Urticaceae 1 Chua 051 Pipturus arborescens (Link) C. B. Rob. Urticaceae 1 Chua 052 Desmodium gangeticum (L.) DC. Fabaceae 1 Chua 053 Dichroa philippinensis Schltr. Hydrangeaceae 1 Chua 056 Villebrunea trinervis Wedd. Urticaceae 1 Chua 057 Medinilla monantha Merr. Melastomataceae 1 Chua 058 Crassocephalum crepidioides (Benth.) S. Moore Asteraceae 1 Chua 059 Ficus cuneiformis C. C. Berg Moraceae 1 Chua 060 Macaranga tanarius (L.) Müll. Arg. Euphorbiaceae 1 Chua 062 Pollia thyrsifl ora (Blume) Steud. Commelinaceae 1 Chua 063 Garcinia venulosa (Blanco) Choisy Clusiaceae 1 Chua 064 Garcinia venulosa (Blanco) Choisy Clusiaceae 1 Chua 065 Piper abbreviatum Opiz Piperaceae 1 Chua 066 Piper abbreviatum Opiz Piperaceae 1 Chua 067 Scheffl era insularum (Seem.) Harms Araliaceae 1 Chua 068 Piper caninum Blume Piperaceae 1 Chua 069 Clethra canescens Reinw. ex Blume Clethraceae 1 Chua 071 Costus speciosus (J. Koenig) Sm. Costaceae 1 Chua 074 Mycetia javanica (Blume) Korth. Rubiaceae 1 Chua 075 Sarcandra glabra (Thunb.) Nakai Chloranthaceae 1 Chua 076 Magnolia liliifera (L.) Baill. Magnoliaceae 1 Chua 077 Tetracera fagifolia Blume Dilleniaceae 1 Chua 078 Omalanthus populneus (Geisel.) Pax Euphorbiaceae 1 Chua 080 Chloranthus elatior Link Chloranthaceae 1 Chua 081 Tabernaemontana pandacaqui Poir. Apocynaceae 1 Chua 082 Lasianthus attenuatus Jack Rubiaceae 1 Chua 083 Aglaia luzoniensis (S. Vidal) Merr. & Rolfe Meliaceae 1 Chua 084 Alocasia heterophylla (C. Presl) Merr. Araceae 1 Chua 085 Aglaonema densinervium Engl. Araceae 1 Chua 086 Schismatoglottis plurivenia Alderw. Araceae 1 Chua 087 Aglaonema densinervium Engl. Araceae 1 Chua 089 Magnolia liliifera (L.) Baill. Magnoliaceae 1 Chua 090 Dillenia reifferscheidia Fern.-Vill. Dilleniaceae 1 Chua 091 Scheffl era insularum (Seem.) Harms Araliaceae 1 Chua 092 Elatostema spinulosum Elmer Urticaceae 1 Chua 093 Gomphostemma javanicum (Blume) Benth. Lamiaceae 1 Chua 094 Cinnamomum mercadoi S. Vidal Lauraceae 1 APPENDIX 1. List of collections from Mt. Kanlaon; the identifi cations were from examination of the photographic sets and were only confi rmed and not altered with subsequent study of the dry specimens. 8 of 8 Applications in Plant Sciences 2015 3 ( 5 ): 1400116 LaFrankie and Chua—Digital fi eld photographs for tropical plant inventory doi:10.3732/apps.1400116 http://www.bioone.org/loi/apps Collection Identifi cation a Family b ID quality c Reason for failure d Chua 096 Coffea arabica L. Rubiaceae 1 Chua 097 Magnolia philippinensis P. Parm. Magnoliaceae 1 Chua 098 Medinilla involucrata Merr. Melastomataceae 1 Chua 100 Leucosyke capitellata (Poir.) Wedd. Urticaceae 1 Chua 102 Calanthe mcgregorii Ames Orchidaceae 1 Chua 104 Saurauia negrosensis Elmer Actinidiaceae 1 Chua 105 Ficus bataanensis Merr. Moraceae 1 Chua 106 Ficus cuneiformis C. C. Berg Moraceae 1 Chua 107 Acer laurinum Hassk. Sapindaceae 1 Chua 108 Acer laurinum Hassk. Sapindaceae 1 Chua 110 Ficus rufi caulis Merr. Moraceae 1 Chua 111 Litsea luzonica (Blanco) Fern.-Vill. Lauraceae 1 Chua 112 Wikstroemia ovata C. A. Mey. Thymelaeceae 1 Chua 113 Costus speciosus (J. Koenig) Sm. Costaceae 1 Chua 014 Ficus scaberrima Blume Moraceae 2 1 Chua 035 Euphlebium bicolense (Lubag-Arquiza) M. A. Clem. & Cootes Orchidaceae 2 1 Chua 036 Calanthe sp. nov. Orchidaceae 2 1 Chua 046 Maesa denticulata Mez Primulaceae 2 1 Chua 101 Ficus carpenteriana Elmer Moraceae 2 1 Chua 032 Cyrtandra pallida Elmer Gesneriaceae 2 1 Chua 033 Medinilla cf. merrittii Merr. Melastomataceae 2 1 Chua 048 Rhaphidophora aff. philippinensis Engl. & K. Krause Araceae 2 1 Chua 073 Pavetta indica L. Rubiaceae 2 1 Chua 099 Medinilla sp. nov. aff. amplifolia Merr. Melastomataceae 2 2 Chua 020 Ardisia sp. Primulaceae 3 1 Chua 049 Dendrochilum sp. Orchidaceae 3 1 Chua 055 Fabaceae Fabaceae 3 1 Chua 088 Acanthaceae Acanthaceae 3 1 Chua 095 Ficus sp. Moraceae 3 1 Chua 018 Lasianthus sp. Rubiaceae 3 1 Chua 019 Ixora sp. Rubiaceae 3 1 Chua 039 Lasianthus sp. Rubiaceae 3 1 Chua 042 Piper sp. Piperaceae 3 1 Chua 045 Lasianthes sp. Rubiaceae 3 1 Chua 070 Piper sp. Piperaceae 3 1 Chua 103 Calanthe sp. Orchidaceae 3 1 Chua 006 Cyrtandra sp. 1 Gesneriaceae 3 2 Chua 013 Pandanus sp. Pandanaceae 3 2 Chua 025 Pandanus sp. Pandanaceae 3 2 Chua 031 Zingiber sp. Zingiberaceae 3 2 Chua 054 Cyrtandra sp. 2 Gesneriaceae 3 2 Chua 061 Alpinia sp. Zingiberaceae 3 2 Chua 072 Alpinia sp. Zingiberaceae 3 2 Chua 079 Cyrtandra sp. 3 Gesneriaceae 3 2 Chua 109 Cyrtandra sp. 4 Gesneriaceae 3 2 a Species name and authorship follows IPNI. b Family follows APG III (2009) . c 1 = identifi ed to species with high confi dence; 2 = identifi ed to species with low confi dence; 3 = identifi ed only to genus or family. d 1 = photographic details inadequate for identifi cation; 2 = taxonomy of the genus too poorly understood. APPENDIX 1. Continued.