In biological science, correct and precise information is required to ensure that the most carnal scientific sin does not occur. Vague and incorrect information with little or no evidence or failure to provide an exhaustive scientific study is sometimes more dangerous than no information at all.
I had an earful this morning from one of my biologist contacts. I had made the carnal sin of not providing enough evidence and basing my identification on assumptions. I had wrongfully identified a frog species before and had sent the information in to a certain publication. Yesterday, I had inquired with biologist friend on the identity of a frog whilst providing a vague description.
As an auditor, my approach in conducting audit fieldwork would be something similar as in field biology. Data collection is crucial to ensure that sufficient evidence is obtained before a conclusion is made and an audit finding is presented to the auditees.
As such, biologist friend has told me off and advised that in order to obtain solid information, I will need a voucher specimen, properly fixed and preserved, and maintained/stored in a well-curated herpetological collection in a public institution (such as FRIM), with all the accompanying catalog details (locality, date, microhabitat/behavioral notes), this is the critical underpinning of scientific herpetology, and the basis from which all other aspects of the science (conservation, evolution, etc.) follows.
I stand corrected and will ensure that from now on, such faus pax shall never occur again.