ability?

[John Grehan]

Ron Gatrelle wrote:

...........Misidentification occurs where people (collector or watcher) 
mess up simply  because they do not know how to identify what ever the 
taxon may be.

..........An example. I don't think anyone (collector or watcher) should 
even offer  (much less have accepted) their determinations of Erynnis 
(Duskywings)  unless some mentor or qualified local Club leader has somehow 
certified them as having the ability to do so.

To take these comments in a more general context of both butterflies and 
moths, the problems of identification are certainly one of familiarity and 
the complexity of individual cases (one sees on this and other lists 
examples of disagreements between well qualified individuals over the 
correct designation of particular species). I am involved with butterfly 
and moth surveys and there is no way I had full taxonomic familiarity with 
all species or could ever hope to. The quality control over this situation 
was the collection of voucher specimens - without which the records would 
have been meaningless. Further, in the location of the vouchers in a 
recognized repository is documented. In our catalogue of Vermont 
Lepidoptera all vouchers were coded and these codes listed with each 
species entry. The problem with maps of distribution records is their 
static form which, as noted by . .... can have false information. The 
second step was 'expert' verification where possible or thought to be 
desirable, and in some cases where suggested by said expert. In some cases 
even experts disagreed. It was a long process and the Vermont project took 
about five years. Even with all these efforts mistakes remain. For this 
reason no such catalogue or other similar publication should be relied on 
as authoritative resources. They are an indication of the possibilities and 
provide direction to the vouchers that may sustain or refute such records. 
One other problem with records can be the uncritical data mining of 
collection specimens that may have identifications of varying quality and 
reliability.

Perhaps the future will be web-based maps that are open to revision as well 
as providing direct links between the mapped location and the collection 
information. This way erroneous records can be eliminated rather than 
persisting like some sort of virus. The Ohio State web site has a very good 
example for a proctotrupid wasp where one may click on a map location to 
get this information.

John Grehan


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl