Thanks, Chris. I’ll have a look at the link when I can log into iSpot 
It has been ‘out’ for a while this evening.
Have fixed that for you:
1 Like
Thanks Chris (and Ken)
This one is catching quite a few people out if they try typing the common name:
e.g.https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/observation/867295/meadow-brown
The subspecies is first choice - but it doesn’t appear to occur in the UK.
1 Like
This from the GBIF site contradicts you:
Or have I got it the wrong way round?
GBIF and iNature seem to contradict each other:
I was working from:
UK Butterflies - Meadow Brown - Maniola jurtina
If GBIF, iNat NBN (694 records) and the reputable UK Butterflies don’t agree, (Wikipedia is a bit obscure: “Maniola jurtina jurtina (Linnaeus, 1758) Europe (type locality Sweden), Spain”) I guess I stand no chance.
I’d still question whether the observers who chose the subspecies intended to do so. Presumably, those posts will only link to others who also went for it.
Correct. The two entries have different record IDs in the species table.
The feature is caused by the way the Dictionary is displayed and used in iSpot. Type in Meadow Brown get a sub-species; type in Fly agaric get a sub-species. Type in Maniola jurtina and get no hassle
(except nine choices)
I some cases it is right, in many cases not. In almost all cases Taxonomists and Dictionary Managers cannot agree, No-one seems to be too bothered but always search iSpot before adding ANY ID
Of course, this ‘feature’ is well covered elsewhere in the Forum but would know where? And it is mentioned in an iSpot Guide called Using the Dictionary but no-one knows where that is.
,
And there is still the need to accept (or even deny) that our dictionary is subject to all the anomalies of this one Species Dictionary | Natural History Museum which is also not functioning very well just now.
When it’s working you can find Maniola jurtina jurtina for yourself .
this has a useful note about the five properly designated and titled Sub Species UK Butterflies - Meadow Brown - Maniola jurtina
Pegomya (a fly that makes mines and pouches) has three entries, One is WRONG
Choose Pegomya l Pegomya
this appears to be a complete waste of time. BUT PLEASE DON’T STOP reporting here
The new dictionary will come but the iSpot browser and Dictionary Drop-down will probably not change.
Someone needs to take a greater interest in Dictionary Anomalies and COLLAGE the issues which now stretch over a few threads, some 4 years old
limpets - the Common name Limpet covers all 8? UK limpets Patellidae
the Dictionary dropdown for Patella
@miked @Chris_Valentine still a serious Flaw. Shows it to be a ‘fungus’ agree-er Icons are for Inverts
https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/observation/839456/
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/uk-species/taxon?tvk=BMSSYS0000006876
There are two entries in the species dictionary table for “Plasmodiophora alni”:
BMSSYS0000014650 - group_ID = 26394 > Fungi and Lichens
BMSSYS0000049825 - group_ID = 26389 > Invertebrates
Neither entry has a GBIF key but I believe it should be this:
…which appears to be a bacteria - which would suggest “Other organisms”.
I know it has been said before, but it is odd that the drop-down menu sometimes offers an obscure subspecies which may or may not occur in the UK. There was an example today at https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/observation/870082/maybe-mottled-beauty#new. It is clearly a mottled beauty but the first option on the menu is a subspecies that doesn’t seem to be a UK one. The fact that there were only two other sightings is what drew my attention to it.
Indeed, and there are Other Bacteria Observations that are Other Organisms
I see this as an INTERNAL (iSpot) error not NHM. Am I right?
Yes - we have to map every entry in the big NHM Excel file they send us to one of our top-level groups. If the entry already exists (same NBN key), these are based on the existing values. For new records, they’re mapped using a lookup table Mike created that maps NHM’s taxonGroup onto our browser_group and top level taxonomic group_ID (the 263xx numbers).
I’ve just looked up BMSSYS0000049825 and that’s marked by NHM as ‘protozoan’ and for some reason that’s been mapped to 26389 > Invertebrates - have to ask @miked why that should be.
Another anomaly: when you look up ‘golden-ringed dragonfly’ the first option is 'golden-ringed dragonflies (Cordulegaster), leading to people failing to give a specific ID though it should be obvious.
Sphaeridium? Beetle genus with the same name as a fungus: https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/observation/866159/beetle
There are indeed other Cordulegasters that might find their way here (I mean there).
Golden-ringed dragonflies is the ‘group’ name for 7 species plus 2 subs.
I think the entry is legitimate, rather like tadpole might be (but isn’t!)
My point is more that it is misleading to put the genus plus the English name in the drop-down menu before the only common species in the genus - indeed, the only member of the genus ever to have occurred in the UK, to the best of my knowledge. It leads to people putting ‘golden ringed dragonflies’ when they intended to put ‘golden ringed dragonfly’.