Thanks.
This is an ‘Across the board’ anomaly (but not everywhere).
The same with Diphasiastrum | Species Dictionary | UK and Ireland | iSpot Nature for example
And was the same in the previous Dictionary - it was the subject of some discussion just before the Dictionary Update - nothing has changed
I suspect it relates to the Taxi-Attribution changes and reflects the NHM Index but structured differently
See Species Dictionary | Natural History Museum
2 apparently identical entries, one unacceptable (ill-formed) because of the way the attribution is now applied (date and name corrections in this case)
I went back and added a belated explanation, sorry
[quote=“dejayM [ChrisMcA] post:102, topic:1773”]
but not everywhere
[/quote]
Is a waste because it is impossible to add the ID Erica vulgaris anyway. However, should you type it in the Sci. name box, up will come the up-to-date name.
I think all reference to Non-recommended synonyms should be removed from the iSpot Browser and the display in the NHM be modified, as the correct name is also (in error?) under the heading Synonyms here
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/uk-species/taxon?tvk=NBNSYS0000003902
Do you know why it won’t come up with any ecological interactions for an observation and also why it only says associated with?
I have made another observation for this observation to add as an ecological interaction but it says it can’t find anything
Its a known bug - haven’t had time to look into it yet.
you MIGHT find that if the grid references are precisely the same the interaction/association will work
Let us know IF that fixes it Zo
That’s a good point - certainly worth checking - maybe the location check is too precise?
Ok I will let you know
It worked so it’s done it
The icon wasn’t on the exact location it was near the spot it was observed in but not in it It was just outside the Orchard so The marker was slightly off of The exact location like with gps so I had to put it on the spot it was observed in. I did it on both observations. it still only says associated with so there isn’t more than one option like feeding or other interactions though
Thanks for testing this theory.
a fly associated with a cowpat HAS to be the same cowpat as the fly (precisely).
It would be the same with a cat and mouse (you’ll know what I mean)
Just type in the same Grid Reference for it to work
There might be some flexibility if we Hide Precise Locations - worth a test
I do not much like or use the associations/interactions ‘feature’
I have found that there is an allowance of about 30 feet between pins in the map.
I had a link that did not work at first at the allotments.
I moved the pins a bit at a time until the link worked.
It was one plot apart for the link to work. Plots are 30 feet wide.
I moved the pins towards a point between the predator and the kill.
I think it needs more options cause it only has associated with whereas before it has other options and not just associated with
I have been using the Sat Map for locations for a long time. it has great accuracy, to a few Cms in some cases
I used it extensively in these projects
https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/project/769578/
https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/project/746155/
Minor issue with Eristalis intricaria - in the dictionary, a strange Scandinavian capital A appears after the word Eristalis.
There is a a continuous need to list all DICTIONARY and BROWSER issues in this thread.
Polychaeta has three entries in the Dictionary menu. Only one is suitable for Observations.
We list these HERE so that there is a record.
A new Dictionary version is currently being tested which has the same issue
Polychaeta observation
https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/observation/863784/ preview removed
This Eristalis intricaria has been reported before and I thought fixed. I suppose each might need individual attention of Chris the Coder. So it is best to link them here
https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/observation/738120/ preview removed
with a tag @Chris_Valentine
Not Scandinavian. The Nordic languages use A with ring above, but this is A with circumflex, as used in French, etc. It probably indicates an ISO-8859/UTF-8 issue.
Not many people would understand that sentence!