[Taxacom] Citizen Science

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sat Oct 25 17:33:08 CDT 2014


And if you were to make your digital museum freely available online, then a "citizen science" site like iNaturalist would be a convenient repository for it, and we would have an all too rare case of a professional scientist making a really valuable contribution to a public resource.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 26/10/14, Dr Brian Taylor <dr.brian.taylor at ntlworld.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citizen Science
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Michael Wilson" <wilsomichael at gmail.com>
 Received: Sunday, 26 October, 2014, 11:10 AM
 
 Can I point you in the direction of
 Antweb.org who now have images of ant
 type specimens. Although an enormously useful resource to
 someone, like
 myself, seeking to verify what, without visiting museums or
 borrowing the
 type specimens (not really desirable for fragile dry mounted
 insects), were
 often "best guess" identifications of fresh material, the
 limitation is that
 the excellent quality Antweb images (photographs) not
 infrequently do not
 show diagnostic characters.  On the other hand I have
 found it possible to
 identify species from field photographs sent to me. The
 moral objections to
 taking specimens perhaps are misguided as, certainly if one
 is trying to
 make sound ecological conclusions, or similar, one does, in
 my view, need to
 know exactly what species one is studying.  I write
 this from in-depth
 experience of such research.  Cytotaxonomy studies in
 recent years have
 verified the existence of cryptic sibling species of
 Anopheles which I felt
 lay behind an apparent resurgence of malaria transmission in
 the Solomon
 Islands some 40 years ago. My conclusions had come from
 monitoring the time
 of man-biting before and after house-spraying operations had
 commenced.
 
 In my ant taxonomy studies, I take a series, usually about
 20, of simple
 photographs from different angles and at different levels of
 magnification.
 I compile a "photomontage" to illustrate the species and
 maintain a digital
 museum of most of the specimens, or representatives from
 samples of more
 than one ant. The actual mounted specimens will all go into
 museum
 collections but, hopefully, not have to be loaned out and,
 so, risk damage
 or loss.
 
 Brian
 
 
 On 25/10/2014 22:26, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:
 
 > The issue of photos vs. specimens is a complex and
 interesting one. In many
 > cases, photos are sufficient to identify a species. So,
 if one wants data on
 > spatiotemporal distribution, it is a better use of
 resources to make a
 > collection of digital photos than it is to accession
 all those specimens into
 > a collection which will require continual curation.
 That said, I am not
 > necessarily talking about photos of live specimens in
 the field, which have
 > limited utility. My vision is diagnostic images of dead
 specimens, with no
 > need to then preserve the specimen*. This is my
 approach on NatureWatch NZ.
 > Luckily, they, and also iNaturalist and BowerBird have
 no "ethical" objections
 > to this approach, but some other sites like ProjectNoah
 don't appear to be
 > open to such modifications of their initial purpose
 and
 > philosophy.
 
 Stephen
 
 *One objection to this is that taxonomy changes, and
 > species get split. However, in practical terms, it
 would be rare that good
 > diagnostic photos could not be re-evaluated in the
 event of taxonomic
 > changes.
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Sun, 26/10/14,
 > Michael Wilson <wilsomichael at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
 > Citizen Science
  To: "Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 > <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Sunday, 26 October, 2014, 2:35 AM
 
 
 > One aspect of the increasing use of
  digital images for recording does not
 
 > seem to have been mentioned in this interesting
 discussion
  (if it has I
 
 > apologise). Recording using images has become a
 substitute
  for taking any
 
 > specimens. We often receive images and requests for
  identifications based
  on
 > images- when many groups would require examination of
  small characters.
  This
 > is fine- we point out that we need specimens to
 examine
  since there
  could be
 > many species that look almost identical. But many
  are morally
  opposed to
 > taking any specimens - even of small
  invertebrates on the
  grounds they are
 > conservationists- and not 'collectors'.
 
  I do believe that if we cannot
 > encourage the 'next
  generation' to develop
  their skills and interests by
 > taking specimens home to
  examine under a
  microscope then we will have even
 > fewer taxonomists than we
  have now.
 
  Mike Wilson
 
  Entomology Section
 
 > Dept of Natural Sciences
  National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, UK
 
  On Sat, Oct
 > 25, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Mike Sadka <sadkamike at gmail.com>
  wrote:
 
  > Ah
 > Stephen!
  >
  > You throw out such tempting bait...
  >
  > But I've promised
 > myself I am not rising again!
  >
  > Cheerio, Mike
  >
  > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014
 > at 10:31 PM, Stephen Thorpe <
  > stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
  > > wrote:
  >
  >
 > > It an issue of "reading between the lines" and
 the
  loading of neutral
  > >
 > facts with negative spin. Also, Dr. Ward set the
  Hymenoptera project up
  > >
 > only to shoot it down for not having associated
  protocols that he didn't
  > >
 > set it up with! I just think that this is a
  nonsense paper. It concludes
  > >
 > the blatantly obvious (i.e., that there are some
  geographical and
  >
 > taxonomic
  > > biases in "citizen science" data) from an
 analysis
  of a very
 > limited
  > > dataset, and fails to consider how sites like
  NatureWatch NZ
 > might evolve
  > > in such a way as to lessen these biases. One way
  would be
 > more engagement
  > > from professional scientists, but Darren
  contributed no
 > observations
  > > himself, so it all just seems to me to be a bit
 of
  a
 > hatchet job.
  > >
  > > Stephen
  > >
  > >
 > --------------------------------------------
  > > On Sat, 25/10/14, JF Mate
 > <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
  wrote:
  > >
  > >  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citizen
 > Science
  > >  To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  > >  Received:
 > Saturday, 25 October, 2014, 1:54
  AM
  > >
  > >  Continuing Stephen and
  > > 
 > thread on Darren Ward and Citizen Science.
  I
  > >  am attaching an excerpt of
 > his abstract:
  > >
  > >  Darren Ward (excerpt from
  > >  abstract of the
 > article):
  > >
  > >  “Over the course of 1 year 25 members
  > >  contributed
 > 360 records from 186
  > >  taxa,
  > >  including the discovery of several
 
 > introduced species new to
  > >  New
  > >  Zealand. There was a strong
 > geographical
  > >  bias to the records, with the
  > >  majority being
  > > 
 > based around the major cities. Aculeates
  (stinging
  > >  wasps) were
 > significantly over-represented
  in
  > >  the NatureWatch records.
  > >  Only
 > half (55 %) of
  > >  taxa were identified to species level, with
  a
  > > 
 > further 28 % at genus level, and 17 %
  > >  identified above genus level
  > > 
 > (family,
  > >  order). Furthermore, the majority (65 %) of
  taxa were
  > > 
 > recorded only once, and only a few taxa
  were
  > >  recorded [5 times (top
  >
 > >  records were
  > >  ‘‘Ichneumonidae’’,
  ‘‘Hymenoptera’’,
  > >  Anthidium
 > manicatum,
  > >  and Apis mellifera). It
  > >  is probable that these same
 > biases also
  exist
  > >  for many other taxonomic groups in projects
  > > 
 > operated by citizen
  > >  scientists lacking set
  > >  protocols. Caution
 > should be exercised on
  the
  > >  subsequent use, compilation, and analysis
 
 > of
  > >  citizen science,
  > >  especially without prior
  > >  examination of
 > records and potential
  biases.”
  > >
  > >
  > >  (Stephen´s
  > >  opinion
 > crudely cut and pasted here) “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.”
  > >
  > >
  > >  Seriously,
  > >  what is the problem
 > with what Mr Ward is
  saying? If you
  > >  check any of the sites mentioned in
 > Taxacom
  you
  > >  will discover that
  > >  what he is saying is
  > >  true!
 > This is not a criticism of nature
  lovers,
  > >  it is a human condition: we
 > love
  butterflies
  > >  and colourful things and
  > >  dislike small
  > > 
 > creepy-crawlies. Why would you expect
  different from the
  > >  subset of
 > nature macrophotographers?
  > >
  > >  Jason
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >  On 24
 > October
  > >  2014 09:17, Alastair   Culham
  <a.culham at reading.ac.uk>
  > > 
 > wrote:
  > >  > For the past year we've been
  > >  running a citizen science
 > project to survey
  powdery mildew
  > >  species around the UK in a joint
 > project
  with the Royal
  > >  Horticultural Society -
  > >
 > http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/crg/powdery-mildew-survey/
  > >  >
  > >  > This has
 > resulted in
  > >  a data set of around 200 samples in the
  trial year
 > including
  > >  59 different PM species
  > >
  >
 > http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/whiteknightsbiodiversity/campus-species-lists/fungi
 > /powdery-mildew-2014/
  > > .
  > >   We are hoping for over 1000
  samples next
 > season.
  > >  >
  > >  > Samples are
  > >  identified using a combination of
 
 > morphological and
  > >  molecular techniques by a research council
  funded
 > PhD
  > >  student and the results are emailed back to
  the sample
  > > 
 > providers as well as posted on our
  blogs.  Engaging the UK
  > >  public in
 > this scheme has allowed a more
  widespread sampling
  > >  and allows the
 > student doing the work to
  focus on lab work
  > >  rather than chasing around
 > the UK for
  samples.
  > >  >
  > >  > The challenge has
  > >  been to keep the
 > survey in people's minds so
  that we get
  > >  samples sent on a regular basis
 > throughout
  the long mildew
  > >  season.  This is a non-trivial job and
 
 > requires a lot of
  > >  forward planning.
  > >  >
  > >  >
  > >  Ours is a
 > small CS scheme compared with
  large scale
  > >  monitoring of the UK flora by
 > the BSBI which
  has a network
  > >  of local (usually highly expert) regional
 
 > recorders and a
  > >  further network of taxonomic experts to back
  them up. 
 > The
  > >  common feature of effective CS schemes is
  that there is an
  > > 
 > ongoing investment in management of them and
  close
  > >  monitoring of data
 > quality.
  > >  >
  > >  > CS can be highly effective and can be
  a
  > >  very
 > cost effective way of gathering data if
  the scheme is
  > >  run well.  All
 > science risks a rubbish
  in, rubbish out
  > >  scenario and CS is just as
 > sensitive to this
  as any other
  > >  science is.
  > >  >
  > >  >
  > > 
 > Alastair
  > >  >
  > > 
  ____________________________________________
  > >  >
 
 > > >  > Dr Alastair Culham
  > >  > Centre for Plant Diversity and
  > > 
 > Systematics
  > >  > Harborne Building, School
  > >  of Biological Sciences
  >
 > >  > University of
  > >  Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AS
  > >  >
  > > 
 > U.K.
  > >  >
  > >  > Associate
  > >  Professor of Botany
  > >  > Curator,
 > Reading
  > >  University Herbarium (RNG)
  > >  >
  > > 
 
 > ____________________________________________
  > >  >
  > >  >
  > > 
 > ________________________________________
  > >  > From: Taxacom
 > [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
  > >  on behalf of Stephen Thorpe
 > [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
  > >  > Sent: 23 October 2014 21:35
  > >  > To:
 > KenWalker; John Grehan
  > >  > Cc: Taxacom
  > >  > Subject:
  > >  Re:
 > [Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia
  aldabrae
  > >  >
  > >  > Ken may be a
 > little
  > >  bit oversensitive, given that he probably
  has to constantly
  >
 > >  battle the indifference to (and sometimes
  obstruction of)
  > >  citizen
 > science, by entomologist colleagues.
  In my view,
  > >  biodiversity recording
 > sites like Project
  Noah, iSpot,
  > >  iNaturalist, BowerBird, NatureWatch NZ,
 > etc.
  are not
  > >  actually all that useful *as initially
  conceived* (photos
 > in
  > >  the field of live organisms), but can evolve
  into something
  > > 
 > far more useful. I agree that there is not
  much point in
  > >  thousands of
 > records of monarch butterflies,
  and no little
  > >  brown micro moths. For
 > some idea of my
  vision for these
  > >  biodiversity recording sites, I invite
 > you
  to browse my own
  > >  2489 contributions to NatureWatch NZ, here:
  > >
 > http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/stho002
  > >  >
  > >  > Stephen
  > > 
 > >
  > >  >
  > > 
  --------------------------------------------
  > >  > On Fri,
 > 24/10/14, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
  > >  wrote:
  > >  >
  > >  > 
 > Subject:
  > >  Re: [Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia
  aldabrae
  > >  >  To:
 > "Walker, Ken" <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au>
  > >  >  Cc: "Taxacom"
 > <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  > >  >  Received: Friday, 24 October,
  2014,
 > 2:51
  > >  AM
  > >  >
  > >  >  Ken,
  > >  >
  > >  >  Admittedly I only
  > > 
 > read postings in a fragmentary way and I
  > >  >  know I sometimes
  > >  >
  >
 > >  miss items, but I am confused by your
  reference to Jason
  > >  >  Mate
 > saying the
  > >  >
  > >  the efforts of citizen science can be
  dismissed as
 > "
  > >  are
  > >  >  taking pictures of
  > >  >  "bugs": bigger, smaller,
 > red,
  > >  blue or yellow." What I read
  > >  >  was
  > >  that he said
  > > 
 > >  that "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." This made
  > >  >  no
 > reference
  > >  to 'citizen science' and I did not see any
  > >  > 
 > implication of
  > >  >
  > >  such. It was only a criticism of a
  particular
 > mode of
  > >  >  information gathering
  > >  >  or sharing. I would be
 > grateful
  > >  therefore for how you made
  > >  >  that link
  > >  the
  > > 
 > >  way you did.
  > >  >
  > >  >  John Grehan
  > >  >
  > >  >  On Wed, Oct 22,
 
 > > >  2014 at 9:04 PM, Walker, Ken <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au>
  > >  >  wrote:
 
 > > >  >
  > >  >  > Hi Jason,
  > >  >
  > >  >
  > >  >  > 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
  >
 > >  >  biodiversity
  > >  >  >
  > >  databases.
  > >  >  >
  > >  >  > Let 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-de
 > ad-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.
  > >  >  >
  > >  >
  > > 
 > > BowerBird "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 see:
  > >  >  >
 
 > > >
  > 
 > http://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q=data_resource_uid:dr893#tab_ma
 > pView
  > >  >  > ).  This represents
  about a 60%
  > >  identification
  > > 
 > >  success rate for
  > >  images that
  > >  >  > you describe as
  > > 
 > "pictures of "bugs": bigger, smaller,
  > >  >  red, blue or yellow."
  > >  > 
 > >
  > >  >  > New
  > >  species 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 !!
  > > 
 > >  >
  > >  >
  > >  > I am sure these stories here can be
  repeated for
  > > 
 > >  Project Noah, iNaturalist
  > >  >  > and iSpot.
  > >  >
  > >  >
  > >  >  >
 > For me, citizen science is
  > >  on the up not the
  > >  >  decline.
  > > 
 > Getting
  > >  >  > "professional"
  > >  scientists to engage with this "new"
 
 > > >  >  data source is the next
  > >  >  > "challenge".
  > >  >  >
  > >  >  >
 > Best
  > >  Ken
  > >  >  >
  > >  >  >
  > >  -----Original Message-----
  > >  > 
 > > From:
  > >  Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
  > >  >  On
 > Behalf Of JF
  > >  >
  > >  > Mate
  > >  >  > Sent: Thursday, 23
  > >  October
 > 2014 2:14 AM
  > >  >  > To:
  > >  Taxacom
  > >  >  > Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
  >
 > >  De-extinction & Rhachistia
  > >  >
  > >  aldabrae
  > >  >  >
  > >  >
  > > 
 > > Hi Bob,
  > >  >  >
  > >  >  > 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).
  > >  > 
 > >
  > >  >  > Best
  > >  >  >
  > >  >  > Jason
  > >  >
  > >  >
  > >  >  >
  > > 
 > >
  > >  >
  > >  >  >
  > >  >
  > >  >
  > >  >  > 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
  > >  >  >
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > >  >  > 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
  > >  > 
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > >  >  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
  > >  >
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > >  > 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
  > >  >
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > >  > 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
  > > 
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > >  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
  > >
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > > 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
  >
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > 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
 
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  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
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/list
 > info/taxacom
 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 mailing list