The concept of parataxonomy is not new
– in his work in Costa Rica Dan Janzen became a major exponent of
the idea, which has caught on in many ways. Current crowd-sourced
identification systems such as iSpot are arguably one form of
parataxonomy. I like to think that the UK Hoverflies Facebook page
has parallels with parataxonomy – especially where there is a
fusion between people whose primary interest is photography and those
with interests in biological recording.
What I find especially encoraging is
the way in which this interaction is leading to more active members
searching out species that they might hitherto have ignored or not
seen. From a first glance, I think the data from 2015 will be rather
different when compared to that from 2014. There seem to be many more
posts of Cheilosia, pipizines and the 'awkward squad' of small
Chrysogastrines and Bacchines.
It is also noticeable that several
people whose initial interest in photography has progressed to
retaining specimens to pass on to me for identification; thus we will
hopefully be able to match photos to firm identifications. In time
this may help to refine our understanding of how to identify species
from photos and the subtle features of live animals that are lost in
museum specimens. There is a long way to go, but this is a great
start. Ideally we need to recruit more participants in this approach.
Thinking in broader terms, it strikes
me that there are potentially significant numbers of people who want
to develop inventories of what occurs on their favoured site or
locale – maybe an island, a village or parish. Obviously
photography will help, but it can only go so far.
I'm far from clear how many recording
schemes actually engage with photographers – probably relatively
few to any major degree. Some will doubtless feel that there is no
point engaging to find that most species cannot be fully identified
(I have head that from several scheme organisers). Others may feel
they cannot commit the time, which is a fair point because this sort
of engagement is highly time-consuming. Yet, if we really want to
develop a strong network of recorders of more difficult taxa we must
engage and look for ways to increase interaction between interested
and willing local recorders and those with the taxonomic skills
needed to create reliable records.
The development of a more comprehensive
parataxonomic network therefore seems to me to be an essential next
step. We need to find a way of encouraging/recruiting people who will
collect specimens and pass them on for identification (or storage for
later identification), and to match this commitment to the available
taxonomic specialists. Most recording scheme organisers probably do
this in an ad-hoc manner when they identify problem specimens sent to
them. But, we might do so much more to develop a data flow that
really improves coverage. Parts of the country may not be populated
by specialists in more difficult taxa, but there is a better chance
of finding people who might collect material for dispersal to
specialists for identification.
Making such a system happen is a
challenge. Inevitably, if one starts to collect specimens there will
be a stage when new recruits only see and retain obvious species, but
they will (and do) develop skills that yield a wider range of taxa.
What is important is to make sure that material submitted gets
identified and logged, with feedback to local contributors so they
know what they have generated and can start to see a picture of their
chosen area unfold.
I would love to get such a system up
and running for hoverflies but am mindful that all sorts of other
flies will be passed on and will need identification. I therefore
think that we might try to make something happen amongst the schemes
run under the umbrella of Dipterists Forum. Is there somebody that
might take on the organising role if we could make it happen? I'm not
sure I have the time, but will happily promote such a concept amongst
the developing networks of UK Hoverflies and UK Diptera Facebook
pages.
The follow-up question is then whether
there is an appetite for such a system developed through the NBN and
local records centres? My vision would be the development of a
national network that would generate records from widely dispersed
and otherwise under-recorded places. If successful it might help to
resolve the problem of some areas of the UK being substantially
under-recorded.
Now, this all sounds fine, but the
follow-up question is whether there is the technical capacity to
identify the inflow of specimens? At current levels of activity there
probably is. BUT, we have seen with the UK Hoverflies Facebook page
that its success means that there is a need for several toxonomically
competent people to engage. In the case of UK Hoverflies we now have
a team of five running the site. I could not have coped without the
help of Ian, Joan, Judy & Stephen. I am eternally grateful to
them all for their help, and also to Gerard Pennards upon whom we
call for expert advice fairly regularly.
That experience clearly illustrates the
need to think in advance about the scale of uptake that might be
involved and what it means in terms of organisational and technical
support. Running a recording scheme today is very different to the
concept developed in the 1960s and 70s. We need to embrace the new
technology but also to pay attention to the technical capacity needed
to make such systems work.
This seems to me to be the next stage
in the biological recording journey and one that should be considered
by those who have an interest in promoting biological recording.
No comments:
Post a Comment