Associations - thoughts on what is appropriate

[DavidHowdon]

What do people think of adding an interaction ('associated with') a species and another example of the same species?

I have this entry https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/observation/755723/
and subsequently observed the same bird interacting with another Red Kite (courtship behaviour I think). I my notes I describe this and refer to the birds as associating with one another.

However the iSpot associations feature seems to be more designed for relationships between different taxa.

So when I get round to processing the pictures of the other kite do people think it would be appropriate to add it as an interaction from that entry?

[dejayM]

I have never, much, been impressed with Associations in iSpot. Everyone knows that bees fertilise flowers, that Foxes love hens, and that Kites eat food etc.
I believe Associations should be reserved for unusual aspects. I think there is plenty of scope for Unusual Behaviour posts (or associations). Here's one https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/observation/710967/cloaca-pecking
Your post is ideal for a discussion on behaviour - discussions in Comment Trails have been the strong backbone of Marine Observations for some time and I have learned SO much by participating. Typically -
https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/observation/700675/mission-impossible-chiton-id-whitburn-beach-sunderland
There is a difference between a sighting of a Kite and behaviour of Kite(s) but somehow we need to encourage agree-ers to move to Comments and (possibly) inform or learn.

[marlandza]

I was using the "Associated with" feature for my Lichen finds in RSA, especially along the west coast where I found the associated species occuring together, over and over. In fact Wirth also mentions this in his guide when identifying certain species.
Haven't checked for a while - but some of the links became corrupted during the Times of Change.