[Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae
Jose Fernandez Triana
jftriana at uoguelph.ca
Thu Oct 23 12:56:21 CDT 2014
I found your post related to NatureWatch and Darren Ward a bit harsh. I know that you are one of most active and vocal members on this list (and other lists). And that is totally fine with me, because lists are supposed to be for that, and some people are keener to write more and longer than others (or have more time for that, or whatever). So, I welcome every time that you step into the plate with your comments (no matter how many times, and they are plenty). But I find that aggressive language (note that you call Darren's paper a 'piece of rubbish') is uncalled for.
I know Darren personally, and in the past I have collaborated and published with him. So, out of curiosity, I went straight to the paper you so happily called rubbish, downloaded the pdf and read it. I found that is simple, 4-page note commenting on the results of 1-year study of data gathered by citizen scientists. It discusses the pros and cons of citizen science (and Steve, you should know that there are always pros and cons in everything), it PRAISES NatureWatch for its work and discusses what could be done to improve the work (specially mentioning the much larger expertise on these topics from British lepidopterists). It also states some results that happen everywhere (not only in New Zealand or in NatureWatch) such as: larger representation of Aculeates over Parasitica hymenopterans (I am using Parasitica NOT in a phylogenetic meaning, just for brevity), and prevalence of records for larger, more colorful species in spite that the smaller, 'duller' parasitoid wasps are much more diverse and prevalent. The paper do value citizen science contributions, it just does not say that is the best thing after sliced bread.
There is barely any criticism in that paper (the "harsher" words I found were in the last sentence of the paper where it reads, and I quote: "Although it is clear that citizen science has tangible benefits, I caution the overoptimistic use of citizen science, without examination of records and potential biases"). If such a relatively mild comment offends your sensibility, Steve, the funny thing is that you constantly use in this list WAY stronger words, for any topic and person you do not agree with -and there are MANY examples of that. Why that double standard?
In any case, I am not interested in arguing with you, but wrote this post to the list because it seemed fair to me to let other readers know that the 'rubbish and criticizing paper' from Darren might not be that bad or harsh as Steve wrote yesterday.
I think that citizen science is VERY important and I am very much in favor of promoting and supporting it as much as possible -in fact, I am trying, here in Canada, to get people interested in rearing parasitoid from caterpillars... but this post is not about me so I will not go into details now. What I think is that anything has to be weighted, analyzed and discussed, as we do (or should be doing!) in Science.
If anything, this is my own, rubbish opinion on the topic ;-)
All the best,
José L. Fernández-Triana, PhD.
Research Associate, Canadian National Collection of Insects,
and Biodiversity Institute of Ontario
960 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0C6, Canada
Phone: 613-759-1034. Email: jftriana at uoguelph.ca, Jose.Fernandez at agr.gc.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: "JF Mate" <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>, "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "KenWalker" <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:25:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae
Ken said: Getting "professional" scientists to engage with this "new" data source is the next "challenge"
Yep, that's the mountain needing moving alright!
On http://naturewatch.org.nz , we have the occasional "professional scientist" (mainly botanist), but involvement is still minimal in that regard. In one unfortunate incident, ecologist/hymenopterist Dr. Darren Ward created a project on Nature Watch with no definite aims or protocols (which he COULD have added), and then after one year prublished this piece of rubbish criticising NatureWatch for having no definite aims or protocols, and being taxonomically and geographically biased:
Ward, D.F. 2014: Understanding sampling and taxonomic biases recorded by citizen scientists. Journal of insect conservation, 18(4): 753-756. doi: 10.1007/s10841-014-9676-y
I interpret this to have been a deliberate attempt to reinforce to the professional community the (false) idea that such "citizen science" projects aren't worth bothering with. Of course there is some taxonomic/geographical bias! Or did he expect citizen scientists to go out with quadrats and vacuum cleaners from north to south?? Natural history collections in museums and research institutions are not free of such biases either. I only wish entomologists here in NZ were going out there and revising all taxa everywhere!
On Thu, 23/10/14, Walker, Ken <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae
To: "JF Mate" <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>, "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Thursday, 23 October, 2014, 2:04 PM
I totally disagree with your
assessment of citizen science being on the decline and that
the efforts of citizen science can be dismissed as "
are taking pictures of "bugs": bigger, smaller,
red, blue or yellow."
Here is Australia, we have a citizen science
website called BowerBird which is a socially interactive
website somewhat like the northern hemisphere equivalents of
Project Noah, iNaturalist and iSpot. For me, the quality
of a citizen science website is whether or not the data it
generates is on-shared with national or international
me give you one BowerBird example that came in this month.
A citizen science person submitted an image of a
ladybeetle. He had tried to identify it himself but could
not place the species. In Australia, we have a wonderful
CSIRO website displaying all known extant Australian
ladybeetle species. The BowerBird image did not match any
of the images on the diagnostic website. So, we sent the
image to the BMNH ladybeetle expert who came back with the
statement "Back from the Dead". The species
photographed was presumed to be extinct as it had not been
seen or recorded since 1940. The story of this citizen
science find was told in one of our national newspapers: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/extinct-ladybird-back-from-the-dead-20141014-115u4j.html
(where you can see an image of the beetle).
To me, the essence of science
is to observe and ask questions. What better way is there
than to have thousands of "natural history amateur
eyes" documenting spatial and temporal data for the
Australian (swap Australia for any other country) biota.
BowerBird has discovered new species and helped to track
invasive species. The exotic carder bee (Afranthidium
(Immanthidium) repetitum) was first reported in Brisbane in
2000. By 2007, it had been recorded south in Sydney but
since the Sydney records no further distribution extensions
had been recorded. Then in February and March 2014, two
amateurs noticed a "strange bee" in their
garden. They photographed their strange bee and posted the
images on BowerBird with the question "Bee ID?".
We bee "experts" immediately recognised it as the
South African carder bee and the records came from hundreds
of kilometres north of Brisbane and hundreds south of Sydney
- on the state of Victoria's border. Australia has
many exotic "sleeper weeds" but they remain in
small numbers as they lack their effective pollinator. The
spread of any exotic pollinator needs to be monitored and
watched for a possible explosion of a sleeper weed. It was
citizen science who alerted us to this alarming spread.
"favourites" are often created by an
"expert" mentoring "natural history amateur
eyes" . One such case is the humble but extraordinary
life styled and bizarrely coloured flatworms. Australia
has only one flatworm expert located in north Queensland.
However, he has inspired many BowerBird members from around
Australia to roll back logs in search of these flatworms.
The expert identifies each flatworm image posted to
BowerBird but he adds stories about how the scientific name
was derived and about the species behaviour. There are now
almost 50 BowerBird members on the Flatworm project who have
image captured many of Australia's flatworm species.
The expert has told me that for many species, the BowerBird
images were his first live images for many species - he
usually sees them as pickled individuals. The expert has
also requested and been able to get these amateurs to
collect and send him specimens for DNA analysis. If you
have never seen a flatworm or want to read something about
them, then I recommend the flatworm project: http://www.bowerbird.org.au/projects/1633/sightings
Finally, the Australian GBIF
node is ALA (Atlas of Living Australia). BowerBird went
live in May 2013 and there are automatic weekly data
(images. Identifications, spatrila/temporal etc) uploads to
ALA. Currently, there are almost 11,000 BowerBird records
on ALA (to see the spread of records from around Australia
). This represents about a 60% identification success
rate for images that you describe as "pictures of
"bugs": bigger, smaller, red, blue or
have been nominated, new distributions have been recorded,
new stories have been told about the Australian fauna, new
friendships have been made and these new "friends"
now go out together on their own photographic BioBlitzes and
on-share their finds to BowerBird to ALA to GBIF. I'm
happy with this deal !!
am sure these stories here can be repeated for Project Noah,
iNaturalist and iSpot.
me, citizen science is on the up not the decline. Getting
"professional" scientists to engage with this
"new" data source is the next
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf Of JF Mate
Sent: Thursday, 23
October 2014 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] De-extinction &
I agree the scale is
altogether different but even in densely populated areas in
Australia even basic invertebrate biodiversity knowledge is
lacking. The decline in "natural history" amateurs
is global and cannot be compensated by the explosion of
macrophotography since they (mostly) are taking pictures of
"bugs": bigger, smaller, red, blue or yellow. If
you don´t know what you are photographing then it is like
it doesn´t exist. For Europe (with some exceptions) the
decline may not be as damaging. The fauna is well known and
there are plenty of guides and keys that digital enthusiasts
could use. The goal here has at least been partially
achieved. In Australia, other than butterflies and a couple
of other popular groups you are out of luck.
Cristian. Spain is in a
similar (albeit not as extreme) situation to Australia. High
biodiversity, incomplete knowledge but a declining body of
amateurs (and legislation that doesn´t help either).
This e-mail is solely for the named addressee
and may be confidential. You should only read, disclose,
transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance on or
commercialise the contents if you are authorised to do so.
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please
notify mailto:postmaster at museum.vic.gov.au
by email immediately, or notify the sender and then destroy
any copy of this message. Views expressed in this email are
those of the individual sender, except where specifically
stated to be those of an officer of Museum Victoria. Museum
Victoria does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the
integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that
it is free from errors, virus or interference.
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 27 years of
Taxacom in 2014.
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
More information about the Taxacom