Suggestion for record verification

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Suggestion for record verification

Post by FunkyRes »

For records that have vouchers, I suggest an additional level be added to the database.

The problem: Some records are mis-identified and the record owners are unresponsive.
Some records have vouchers that do not establish the species beyond a reasonable doubt.

In order to better serve those who are using the data, I propose a verification method that allows us to police the data to a higher standard.

I suggest that records with vouchers have one of the four following classifications:

1) Identification unchecked - the default
2) Identification Verified - someone with field expertise has verified identification of the specimen based on the voucher
3) Mis-Identification - someone with field expertise disputes the identification
4) Identification Ambiguous - the voucher does not clearly distinguish the specimen from similar species known to occur in the county

It is my suggestion that anyone who serves the NAFHA as a chapter officer or higher by default be allowed to change the verification classification of any record.

I also suggest that a chapter be allowed to appoint other individuals they believe have the necessary field expertise to have the authority to appoint nafha members in good standing to also be allowed to change the verification status. Non officers who do this should IMHO be appointed, not voted on.

Ideally one should only change the status for records in the chapter that appoints them, but I do not think that needs to enforced by server side code. Mis-behave and your privilege is revoked. That makes it easier for someone with expertise in areas covered by several chapters to seek appointment and help the process out in several chapters. It also makes it easier to deal with areas that do not have chapters, such as Mexico.

This process may also help to encourage users to submit better vouchers that show the proper identification keys and thus improve the quality of the database.

There are some issues that will take some intelligence.
Examples (I'm going to pick on Hubbs):

http://www.naherp.com/viewrecord.php?r_id=46421

He identified it as Diadophis punctatus occidentalis.
In that county, some are that subspecies and some are intergrades. He does not note possible intergrade so I assume he identified it to subspecies level.

I would suggest that in that case, since the species is clearly correct and that subspecies is known in the county of record and the subspecies could be correct that it would be considered verified even though the photo may not show enough to properly id the subspecies.

Example 2:

http://www.naherp.com/viewrecord.php?r_id=46389

There are two distinct species in Shasta County that picture could belong to. Unrelated to this, I asked him for a higher res and he obliged, and he had general locale in the name of the photo. From general locale, I happen to know his ID is correct because it is nowhere near the range of the other possibility.

People verifying records are not usually going to have the locale information, but in cases like that the record could initially be labeled as ambiguous with the reason for the status stated. Hubbs could then respond that the specimen was found within published Oregon range and outside published Sierra range and that should IMHO then be enough to label it verified.

Other potential issues, vouchers that are in a vertebrate museum may not be easy to check if the museum does not have a publicly available catalog or the specimen is not in their database yet. I would suggest that specimens deposited in a museum default to verified status. That does mean a typo in entering the species could still happen, and curators are sometimes wrong, but I suspect specimens deposited in a museum are far more likely to be properly identified.

Another potential issue is cryptic species that do not have published well defined range. In such cases, I think if there is a possibility the ID is correct (like William Flaxington's P regilla in Mendocino County) it would be better for those reviewing the record who do not have intimate knowledge of the complex to leave it alone and leave it for someone who does to review. Such cases could be posted in the forums for thoughts and comments from everyone.

While the above issues are real issues, my suspicion is that they are a minority of cases and most vouchered records should be pretty easy for people with appropriate field experience to verify.

In my opinion, people who have ability to verify should not be allowed to verify their own records. The point is for a second pair of eyes.

People who verify records should have the self control to leave records alone where the don't have the expertise. I'm going to pick on myself here. I can tell a Norpac from a Great Basin but my SoCal rattlesnake knowledge is so weak with no field experience that it would be best for me to leave even NorPacs alone where other species exist, even though I'm fairly confident I can spot a norpac from any others.

Whenever species is changed by the user, the verification gets reset to unchecked.
History of changes to verification and who made the changes should be preserved (record the history in the comments)

Thoughts?
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Fundad »

I like it...

:thumb:

I have nothing to add

Fundad
User avatar
Steve Bledsoe
Posts: 1809
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:14 am
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Steve Bledsoe »

How would you propose to settle disputes, or differences of opinion, between the owner of the record and the verifier?
User avatar
Steve Bledsoe
Posts: 1809
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:14 am
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Steve Bledsoe »

Another question:

When you find an animal in a known intergrade zone, and you are quite certain that it is an intergrade between two subspecies, how do you classify it for the database? Or in other words, if the specimen is an intergrade between two subspecies found in the area, which ssp name do you use to log it into the database?

BTW: I think your idea is very good. I like it. I'm just sort of playing Devil's Advocate here and presenting questions as they occur to me.
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by chrish »

I'm not sure that we want to have every single record "pending verification". That may be an insurmountable task and therefore most of our data would be in this state.

What if we just had the ability to "flag" a record as containing possible errors. Those could be identification errors or silly things like choosing the wrong state (something I have been accidentally guilty of).

So the process would look something like this:

1. The "expert" would Flag the record and put an explanation. Maybe the visible flag status could be one of several things:
Flagged - Species identification
Flagged - Out of expected range
Flagged - Subspecies identification (although I still think we can argue about how to deal with intergrades)
Flagged - Voucher needed
Flagged - Verified (for those records that are fixed)

2. In order not to shame people, the comment/explanation is not visible to the public but the flag status is. Maybe a flagged icon on the record listing would be good since it would lead to others checking the record.

3. The "expert's" explanation of the problem would be emailed to the record owner and they would be given XX days/weeks to respond. If they failed to respond or responded in a "less than cooperative" way, the expert could send the record out to a group of knowledgeable "reviewers" who would weigh in on the subject and the record could be changed (?????) or a comment added to reflect the consencus. If a change was made or comments were added, those would NOT be anonymous, i.e. the record would have a history of the change with the names of all parties involved.

Seems complex, but it would give us a fair way to arbitrate differences.

And before anyone gets their feathers in a ruffle and says "Well, it's MY data and you aren't changing it", remember, it stops being your data when you enter it in the database. It becomes our shared responsibility to make it as good as we can. Think about the goals of the database, it isn't just here to give you a place to store your records online.

I think this is the next big hurdle we have to overcome to make NAHerp all it can be.

Chris
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by FunkyRes »

@chrish - I like it, action is only needed on the flawed records, less work for everyone, accomplishes the same thing.

Only possible drawback is there isn't an easy way to keep track of what has been checked. But that actually may result in more eyes checking each record.

Definitely more KISS than my idea.
User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by spinifer »

Great ideas here. We would have to work out the complexity. However this is something that requires more commitment, do we Have the "expert" power to cover all regions and enough people who are committed?

Also, the comment about who the data belongs to after it is entered into the database. It was my interpretation of the bylaws that the data always remains the property of the submitter.
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by FunkyRes »

spinifer wrote:Great ideas here. We would have to work out the complexity. However this is something that requires more commitment, do we Have the "expert" power to cover all regions and enough people who are committed?
With the model chrish suggested, worst case scenario if we don't have the man power is some records are not flagged that should be. Kind of like how things are now.
Crotalus
Posts: 180
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:05 am

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Crotalus »

chrish wrote: And before anyone gets their feathers in a ruffle and says "Well, it's MY data and you aren't changing it", remember, it stops being your data when you enter it in the database.
I don't think this is true.
chrish wrote:Think about the goals of the database, it isn't just here to give you a place to store your records online.
I know we lost the planning posts, but the point of the database was to make it whatever each person wanted it to be. If you wanted it to be your private life list, thats what it was. If you wanted to contribute to something larger, you could.

ID verification really isn't necessary, IMO. The spot checking process we have in place now is already worlds better than most collections.

-JJ
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by chrish »

I do understand that it is "your data", but I think we have a larger responsibility to the database to make sure your data is as correct as possible. If you are asked to fix something, I think you have the responsibility to fix it for the benefit of all other database users.

So if you refuse, can the "experts" with advice from the "reviewers" then annotate the record to say that it is really taxon X?
Or is the entry the property of the individual and they can have it wrong if they want without any annotation or correction or even being flagged?

Just some issues better discussed in advance I think.
Crotalus
Posts: 180
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:05 am

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Crotalus »

chrish wrote:but I think we have a larger responsibility to the database to make sure your data is as correct as possible
I don't think that responsibility exists.

An easy solution is to have two sets of genus, species, subspecies ID fields in the database - the owner's values, and the public values. In most cases the public values would just be a duplicate of the record owner's values, but experts could override the ID in the public values if needed.

Data requests would be queries on the public values. Everyone gets what they want. Record owners can keep their data as is (as far as they're concerned/can tell), and the database is outwardly more accurate.

-JJ
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by FunkyRes »

I don't think anyone should be modifying the data entered except when there is an across the board taxonomy change.

However flagging records as mis-identification or ambiguous may help the signal to noise ratio and demonstrate to the academic community that quality is something we care about.
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Don Becker »

chrish wrote:And before anyone gets their feathers in a ruffle and says "Well, it's MY data and you aren't changing it", remember, it stops being your data when you enter it in the database. It becomes our shared responsibility to make it as good as we can. Think about the goals of the database, it isn't just here to give you a place to store your records online.
Actually, the database IS just a place to store your records. By providing that service to people we benefit from letting people request the data and people vote to release it. You can choose to NEVER release any data you put into the database. The data you submit is yours and yours only.
User avatar
brick911
Posts: 3488
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:52 am
Location: Morrisville, PA

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by brick911 »

I like the flagged idea because the owner of the record can choose to not do anything, but it still makes the database as a whole a lot more user friendly to someone requesting info. For example, if I want to see how many bull frogs have been found in my county and request that info, one of my biggest obstacles is, do these naherp people all REALLY know how to tell a bull frog from a green frog? If I see that there are flagged records, I automatically have more confidence that someone else is checking, and it can save me time in reviewing the records. *This is an oversimplified example that hopefully demonstrates my point.
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by FunkyRes »

brick911 wrote:I like the flagged idea because the owner of the record can choose to not do anything, but it still makes the database as a whole a lot more user friendly to someone requesting info. For example, if I want to see how many bull frogs have been found in my county and request that info, one of my biggest obstacles is, do these naherp people all REALLY know how to tell a bull frog from a green frog? If I see that there are flagged records, I automatically have more confidence that someone else is checking, and it can save me time in reviewing the records. *This is an oversimplified example that hopefully demonstrates my point.
Exactly.

Somewhere, I don't remember where but somewhere I remember reading that when researching Rana pretiosa in OR and WA, the researchers had to sift through a lot of Rana aurora mis-identified as Rana pretiosa.

That isn't a problem here but problems like that can occur (biggest giveaway in that case is the upturned eyes, but there is also a difference in hind feet webbing and Rana aurora usually has a much more distinct dorsolateral fold)

I believe that of all the historic Rana pretiosa in CA, only 6 or 7 are actually valid (the rest were really Rana cascadae) - again the upturned eyes is a dead give away.

The database is open to hobbyists (like myself) and if professional museum curators make mistakes, hobbyists certainly do, and some people do not like to be told they are wrong and will not change their opinion on something even when pointed out to them. I think most FHF users are more mature than that but ...
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Don Becker »

Guys, how about something along the lines of an agree or disagree link, and we can just keep track of how many people agree or disagree with the ID?
User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by spinifer »

That would be fine, I dont think the procedure needs to be too complicated. Although I would like to see a third option to indicate the photo provides insuficient evidence for identification.
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by chrish »

psyon wrote:Guys, how about something along the lines of an agree or disagree link, and we can just keep track of how many people agree or disagree with the ID?
I'm not sure I like the idea of voting for the validity of a record.
The advantage of flagging is that it simply draws attention to the record when it is queried or sent to a requestor. It doesn't pass judgement per se, just draws attention to a potential issue.

The owner can choose to ignore the flag (or respond to it negatively) but it shows others that there is something about the record that needs to be examined carefully.


Now here's the thorny issue.......do flagged records count in the contest? :shock: :shock: :P
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Don Becker »

Who would be able to unflag it? The person who set the flag, or the owner of the record? If people don't respond to comments, what makes you think they will respond to flagged records?
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Fundad »

Sure is a lot of disparity between our ideas.... :lol: :lol:

Fundad
If people don't respond to comments, what makes you think they will respond to flagged records?

Which brings up a question, shouldn't we NOT be allowing Members to not have a choice to receive emails when notes are made on their entries? In other words I don't think a member should have a choice. If a note is made on an entry an email gets sent to that Member. IMO
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Brian Hubbs »

Why was Hubbs picked on? The ringneck is from lake shasta (N shore). Is that an intergrade? if so, I will note it on the record. I noted it as a possible intergrade. It IS a beautiful pic though...
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Don Becker »

Fundad wrote:Which brings up a question, shouldn't we NOT be allowing Members to not have a choice to receive emails when notes are made on their entries? In other words I don't think a member should have a choice. If a note is made on an entry an email gets sent to that Member. IMO
And what just stops them from ignoring the emails?
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Fundad »

And what just stops them from ignoring the emails?

Nothing but atleast they know what they are ignoring. Currently they don't know..

Fundad
User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by spinifer »

Fundad has a point. Its not like the emails generated are overwhelming.

Maybe there are other option than forcing an email? Like sending a message to FHF account (although I know not everyone has one) or a popup appears next time they sign on the database indicating that someone has posted to their record?
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by chrish »

psyon wrote:Who would be able to unflag it?
I think the person who flagged it has the responsibility to unflag it if/when resolved. Obviously, the NAFHA moderator should have the ability to override/remove a flag in case it is deemed inappropriate.

Otherwise the record remains flagged, which isn't a bad thing. It just says there are some questions about this record.

The flagged record would have the name of the person that flagged it listed so people knew who to contact about the issue. For example, there are records in the database whose specific ID is questionable and maybe unresolvable with the information available. They are still valuable records, but they need to be flagged to draw attention for anyone using those records.

As for the notification, could we have it automatically send a "Your record XXXXX has been flagged by (flagger's name)." with a link to the record. It would be cool if it could send a PM to FHF as well but I wouldn't know how that was possible.

Sure, they could ignore the email and comments and PM, but their record would remain flagged so that other users were aware there was an issue.
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Don Becker »

If a record is already flagged... can someone else flag it as well?
User avatar
RockRatt Rich Morgan
Posts: 141
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:03 pm

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by RockRatt Rich Morgan »

I would not mind some kind of verification on IDs. I know I have received some responses to some pics in the past. One was for a frog that I labeled and going off of CalHerps noted differences between two sub-species that occur in the creek I found them in, (some had yellow on the underside or their rear legs and others didn't) so commented WHY i chose the sub-species I did.Another I can think of was a Rosy Boa from a KNOWN intergrade area.I think I changed it as requested. This CAN BE a difficult thing to list it as this or that since their is NO "Intergrade" option.In this area I have found some really straight lined rosys and some very broken/jagged stripes. So HOW or WHICH sub-species do you list it under in a KNOWN intergrade zone near Whitewater?Also on that MOST SITES call Morongo Rosys "gracia" while many say they are intergrades.As I think that to be true WHERE/HOW to we decide where the dividing line between intergrade zones begin and end o we KNOW which it hould be labeled? Also the EMAIL SYSTEM does work for me, when someone comments/disagrees with a voucher I get an email.Next question is WHEN I add a comment to their comment does that send an email to them?For instance on my frog ID (Fundad) to KNOW that they saw I corrected/explained why I chose/changed the sub-species?
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by chrish »

psyon wrote:If a record is already flagged... can someone else flag it as well?
I don't see any purpose for that. If it is flagged for being the wrong taxon, I guess you could have someone else flag it for a different issue (wrong county?).
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Don Becker »

So what if someone flags it as wrong, and someone else who knows the species better says its right?
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by chrish »

psyon wrote:So what if someone flags it as wrong, and someone else who knows the species better says its right?
I think they notify the moderator and have the flag removed. Or maybe that's the responsibility of the regional review panel?
Or maybe we let a discussion occur and remove the flag when it is resolved?

Chris
User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by spinifer »

I really like the flagging idea as a way to track policing of the database. Based on everyones discussion, here is my quick take (bullet points) on how the flagging procedure should be carried out:

:arrow: Anyone (or possibly a selected group) can flag a record for observed problems with an entry. This may include incorrect ID or concerns with date, county, habitat, notes, etc. For example I just sent someone a comment because they used the date 27-Jul-2010, which is in the future and obviously incorrect.
:arrow: A flag must be accompanied by a note from the flagger (separate from the comment box). Others should be allowed to comment on the flag (eg. disputed ID).
:arrow: A flag should generate an automatic email to the flaggee.
:arrow: A flag remains on the record until the problem is resolved.
:arrow: A flag can only be removed by the flagger or moderator (Don).
:arrow: Finally, all current flagged records should be viewable via a separate link. This will allow others to track and police the flagging.
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by jonathan »

spinifer wrote:I really like the flagging idea as a way to track policing of the database. Based on everyones discussion, here is my quick take (bullet points) on how the flagging procedure should be carried out:

:arrow: Anyone (or possibly a selected group) can flag a record for observed problems with an entry. This may include incorrect ID or concerns with date, county, habitat, notes, etc. For example I just sent someone a comment because they used the date 27-Jul-2010, which is in the future and obviously incorrect.
:arrow: A flag must be accompanied by a note from the flagger (separate from the comment box). Others should be allowed to comment on the flag (eg. disputed ID).
:arrow: A flag should generate an automatic email to the flaggee.
:arrow: A flag remains on the record until the problem is resolved.
:arrow: A flag can only be removed by the flagger or moderator (Don).
:arrow: Finally, all current flagged records should be viewable via a separate link. This will allow others to track and police the flagging.

I like everything Nate said.

I would say that the flaggers can be any NAFHA members who request flagging authority from Don. The only reason I would limit it from being "all NAFHA members" is that so no disgruntled person can just sign up and start flagging everyone's entries. If you actually have to ask Don in order to get flagging authority, it would create an extra step that might help people take it seriously.

Don, once you implement Nate's idea, can I be a flagger? :thumb:
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by chrish »

I agree with Jonathan. Flaggers should have to be approved.

That way no one will carry a grudge (or even joking) too far and flag a bunch of someone else's stuff just to be a jerk.
User avatar
brick911
Posts: 3488
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:52 am
Location: Morrisville, PA

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by brick911 »

If we go this route, I'd be a willing flagger who would be all business. No joking, no guessing. I'd only handle Northeast stuff though, and if I questioned anything would bring it to the attention of either spinifer or Kyle and see if they deem it flag-worthy.
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Don Becker »

http://www.naherp.com/viewrecord.php?r_id=50097

So what about a case like my record above? That snake is technically C. c. flaviventris by range maps, but everything about it is a blue racer, so I entered it as such. If someone flags the record, can I just say "Too bad, I want it as C. c. foxi" ?
User avatar
brick911
Posts: 3488
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:52 am
Location: Morrisville, PA

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by brick911 »

I think you can say too bad because all efforts to ward off debate were put into your entry. You clearly stated any question that one may have, therefore leaving it up to the person requesting data to decide what they want to do with your info. ...my two cents.
Even if I wanted to debate your entry here, its YOUR data, and my debate was identified in your notes section. NO FLAG. :P
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by jonathan »

psyon wrote:http://www.naherp.com/viewrecord.php?r_id=50097

So what about a case like my record above? That snake is technically C. c. flaviventris by range maps, but everything about it is a blue racer, so I entered it as such. If someone flags the record, can I just say "Too bad, I want it as C. c. foxi" ?
Interesting...I have some entries from Eastern Missouri with the same issue....but I entered them as flaviventris.
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Don Becker »

It is my belief that I should enter subspecies based on what they key out to. That way we can show that currently drawn range maps for subspecies are wrong, or that an intergradation zone is larger than reported, or even just that the subspecies is invalid.
User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by spinifer »

Don, for your example, I would consider it resolved when justification was provided in the notes section. Btw, what specific character did you use to key it out?
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Don Becker »

Blue coloring with a pale white belly.
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by chrish »

psyon wrote:An intergrade isn't one subspecies or the other, it is an intergrade.
Well, then this comes down to a chicken/egg thing. Originally there was just the species that encompassed all subspecies. When the first subspecies was described, everything else that wasn't that subspecies, was just the nominal subspecies. You could argue that any animal that doesn't key out to the defined subspecies is just the nominal form. Also, if all the subspecies are later elevated to species status, they will have to be set as one of the new species or another.
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by Fundad »

I have yet to hear, an Idea here on what to put for intergrades, that works. I don't know if there is an answer, as I know I don't have one. I put a note in the notes field, and basically put the sub species that individual is closest too geographically.

Some of the requests that have come in have been vague in what they want, yet a couple have been specific. I would sure hate to have any data left out of a request because it wasn't labeled within the definition of the request.

Fundad
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by FunkyRes »

psyon wrote:It is my belief that I should enter subspecies based on what they key out to.
++
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by FunkyRes »

Fundad wrote:I have yet to hear, an Idea here on what to put for intergrades, that works. I don't know if there is an answer, as I know I don't have one. I put a note in the notes field, and basically put the sub species that individual is closest too geographically.

Some of the requests that have come in have been vague in what they want, yet a couple have been specific. I would sure hate to have any data left out of a request because it wasn't labeled within the definition of the request.

Fundad
It would be cool if we could tag them with every subspecies that contributes to them (usually only two, though some Ensatina in northwest California may have detectable influence from more ?? I really don't know ...)
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for record verification

Post by jonathan »

FunkyRes wrote:
Fundad wrote:I have yet to hear, an Idea here on what to put for intergrades, that works. I don't know if there is an answer, as I know I don't have one. I put a note in the notes field, and basically put the sub species that individual is closest too geographically.

Some of the requests that have come in have been vague in what they want, yet a couple have been specific. I would sure hate to have any data left out of a request because it wasn't labeled within the definition of the request.

Fundad
It would be cool if we could tag them with every subspecies that contributes to them (usually only two, though some Ensatina in northwest California may have detectable influence from more ?? I really don't know ...)
There are triple-integrade gopher snakes in SoCal, and I'm sure that there are plenty of other potential examples too....Gilbert's skinks have a crazy integrade zone, for example.

If I had better knowledge I would label subspecies by external characteristics and not range, but how often are we fully aware of all the characteristics that should be used to key a subspecies? How can we find out all the morphological characteristics that define the subspecies, and can't there be other characteristics that aren't even possible to see from a visual inspection alone? That's one reason that range plays such a large part in ID.
Post Reply