[Taxacom] Citizen Science

JF Mate aphodiinaemate at gmail.com
Tue Oct 28 18:33:27 CDT 2014


Hiya Bob,


sorry for my late reply, one must travel for work occasionally. Thank you
for your long, detailed response to my previous post. I will try to be as
succint as possible.


*>1) There are fewer naturalists around these days. The people who like to
look at and image nature aren't really naturalists, they're just
photographers. … A) There are a lot more naturalists around today than
there have ever been. *

Actually my response was against the assumption that all nature
photographers were naturalists. The intersection of the set of nature
lovers with the set of amateurs photographers is not necessarily equivalent
to naturalists. Assuming that they all are, and getting all giddy with
excitement is at best optimistic. I am not criticizing them either, I am
just wondering where the naturalists are and how to encourage more from
consumers to providers of content beyond pics.



*>2) The online nature image banks aren't that useful, either to
specialists or to people who want to use them as online references. … B)
The online nature image banks are a subset of the nature-image-sharing
world. The most useful banks are the taxon- and habitat-dedicated ones. To
take just one example taxon, Flickr Collembola (today) … and Frans
Janssens' collembola.org <http://collembola.org> The online nature image
banks are a subset of the nature-image-sharing world. The most useful banks
are the taxon- and habitat-dedicated ones. To take just one example taxon,
Flickr Collembola (today) has 234 members and 5300+ images, and Frans
Janssens' collembola.org <http://collembola.org> has a huge gallery of
contributed images.*
Bob, that is a classic bait and switch. I have been talking about things
like Bower Bird, Project Noah, etc (lets call them “enthusiast image
banks”). Collembola and collembola.org are set by professionals or amateur
naturalists. I use them often myself and I could add your website, antweb,
salagubang.net, dermestidae.com; ptinidae.de; marktelfer.co.uk;
squaremetre1.blogspot.co.uk; and many others. Spot the difference. These
are very useful, targeted, open resources which are making use of social
media to store their information and make it available publicly. The
creators are also considerably older than 30 so if anything the oldies are
beating us. As for “enthusiast image banks”, these are biased by: the very
limits of the media, the interests of photographers and the difficulty of
creating some sort of order out of a hodgepodge of images with little or
nothing in the way of tags. If you are lucky enough that your taxon or taxa
are the frequent targets of photographers (macroleps, odonates, buprestids,
largish colourful flatworms...) then you may get lots of records. Otherwise
you are out of luck.



*>3) Naturalists aren't collecting like they used to, for 'ethical'
reasons, or because they think an image is as good as a specimen. (I think
you're also arguing that naturalists should be collecting *more* than ever,
because we're in a biodiversity crisis and somehow that will help, but
that's another story.) C) Imaging is better than collecting for many of the
purposes nature study is done. For an orchid enthusiast,...*

Again, the nuance is important. I am saying that individuals are reticent
to engage in activities that involve collecting due to misplaced ethical
reasons and thus withdrawing from the pool of naturalists. That and overly
restrictive regulation. As to the idea of collecting more or less, I am
unsure what you mean but I think you are suggesting that we should collect
more material per se (i.e. volume). I am saying that I would prefer it if
amateurs went to collect to grounds often ignored by professionals like
brown sites, urban parks or overgrown abandoned lots in Bermuda (oh look, a
funny snail!) instead of going to walks in National Parks and posting
pictures of common butterflies wanting them indentified. There is nothing
wrong with this, it is just not the content creation one hopes for. At
least birdwatchers give you a list. As for imaging being better than
collecting it depends on the group. If we pitted different groups against
each other then, in order from better to worse, we would have sequencing
(think of microorganisms, nematodes, cryptic species), then collecting
(pretty much the majority of arthropods); then photography and then
pressing orchids.



*>4) (I'm inferring this) Nature study isn't marketed or taught enough.
('Maybe it comes down to marketing. Teaching kids that digging holes,
looking under stones and keeping stuff in jars to look at can be
fascinating.') D) 4) You might not like the packaging, but nature is
marketed harder today than it ever was, on TV and You Tube.*

I already said nature is marketed a lot, but in a contemplative sort of
way. I watched Life on Earth as a young boy but also collected pond water,
looked under rocks, etc. I never found anything as exotic as in those shows
(unsurprisingly as I grew up in the city) but I wanted to discover, for
myself, what I had around me, an experience which I think is common to all
budding naturalists. I still have to meet an entomologist (or any other
“naturalist”), amateur or professional, who became interested solely by
watching nature shows and reading books. Maybe I have met the wrong sort of
people but somehow I think touching and discovering nature on your own
helps build that wonder. You mention children bringing rocks and bones to
an open day at the Museum. Why the object instead of an image? Children
collect stuff as a way to get closer to it (adults do to but it is beaten
out of them by other “grown ups”). Why not encourage this curious behaviour
in children to actively explore instead?



*>I don't think the difference between our views is the glass half-full,
half-empty difference. I think your gloominess is based on inadequate
experience. … I disagree with each of these points. In my experience of
Australia and southeast Asia,*
Technically the glass if always full. We are disagreeing on the comparative
quality of each half in view that one is growing and the other, in m y
opinion, shrinking. This opinion is based on my experience in the N
Hemisphere which is by definition limited. I nevertheless consider it
adequate to draw attention to trends which I view with distress.


>It*'s only hypocrisy if the same people are involved, and that's an
over-simplification. Here's real hypocrisy: someone with 2+ kids arguing
that we should stop buggering the Earth for posterity. In creating that
posterity, they're buggering the Earth. 7 billion and enthusiastically
breeding, and expecting more and more resource use per person.*

Way ahead of you. Had one kid on purpose for those very reasons.



*>You also may not appreciate that some traditional means of intellectual
sharing are dying out for good reason. …This does *not* mean that younger
people aren't interested in natural history.... If you're under 30, you
prefer to share and further your interests any time at all online, with a
huge community of like-minded people, for free. ... There are still very
good field guides being published on paper, although many of them are also
available as e-books. Many young scientists I know, and probably most young
naturalist, want those guides as apps for a smartphone, or at least in
digital form to be carried into the field on a tablet.*

See my comments above regarding websites and other social media as well as
those to Ken regarding “media rich” digital publications. I have grown up
with this stuff so I am very comfortable with digital content, having gone
off paper in the early noughties. What I am is concerned about is the lack
of content creation by the large set of “nature lovers who take pics”
beyond completely tagless pictures and “liking”. There are some sites, but
they are a veritable drop in the ocean.


Best


Jason

On 27 October 2014 16:35, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> One would think that geneticists would have solved this issue now that the
> human genome has been sequenced! After all, it seems that there is a
> collecting gene and a non-collecting gene. And then there are all sorts of
> sub genes for bugs, moths, hubcaps, cars etc. And there may even be
> anti-collecting genes. Of course the genetic effects are always combined
> with environmental effects. Anyway, it seems that there are people who find
> collecting of organisms repulsive in one way or another. At least in my
> main group (not the hominids) I can say that the moth has no mouth parts
> and will either die of starvation if not consumed by a predator.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Michael Wilson <wilsomichael at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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-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.
> > > >  >  >
> > > >  >
> > > >  > 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_mapView
> > > >  >  > ).  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/listinfo/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