Many thanks to all of your who responded to my initial request for
information on Databases (that was Genus/species in a single field or
separate fields).  I have put together a mini-report on the responses.
 If you are interested please e-mail me direct (its c. 3 A4 pages so I won't
post it here and waste post-box space).
 
On balance the general feeling was to put the information in as small
a unit as possible (i.e. keep separate) as this way was
1. more flexible to keep pace with taxonomic changes, produce
reports and labels.
2. easier to do bulk changes on records
3. easier to search (no need for complex search requests)
4. quicker to imput data through building generic glossaries only
5.  avoided problems of historic homomyns
Some people did see advantages in a single field - these people were
usually users rather than the creators of the database!
 
A question I would like to raise is a general point.  How many
institutions have experienced problems created through a "collection
management system" designed for audit purposes (i.e. minimum fields
for audit)  being adapted for curatorial purposes?  Is it possible
to achieve a system designed for audit  that helps the curator
improve his/her efficiency in the more mundane task of dealing with
a backlog of historical material? Rather than increasing time to
curate material.
How many institutions have designed their own data-base as opposed to
taking an "audit" product off-the shelf?
Regards
 
Mary Seddon
Curator (Terrestrial Mollusca), Nat.Mus.Wales, Cardiff, UK, CF1 3NP
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel. 44-222-397951x244, Fax 44-222-239009