Development of a common insect catalog website

And it would
also be great to create a Cadastre section, where all entomologists would add "label information" about the capture of a particular butterfly species on the territory of Russia.

But what about reliability? Well, we will get a Cadastre in which half of the information will be erroneous. And why is it so necessary?

And also "Vkontakte" in this downloader there is a very convenient feature - when photos do not need to be independently reduced in Photoshop to the web size.

I don't agree.
The policy should be as follows: If you want to post photos , please edit them to an acceptable state - crop them, correct the white balance. The point, of course, is not in the presence of the automatic reduction function itself, but in the fact that not all and not all photos have an acceptable quality. I judge by the photos posted on this forum.

But if there is a site where it is more convenient to search for information

IMHO, search for info on Lepidoptera.ru inconvenient. Here I click on the Catalog - instead of the catalog I see a bunch of unnecessary thumbnails and a tiny window with a list of families. I select the desired family (also very inconvenient) - and instead of the list of types of Scoops, I see again a vinaigrette from thumbnails. In addition, the taxonomy is not observed - strelchatki, metallovidki, acontia are mixed... But where is the actual systematic catalog?

Otakar Kudrna once carried out a project to map the butterflies of Europe. Everyone was invited to participate. He just estimated the margin of error-no more than 1% of "misinformation",

You can estimate any percentage. There may be no errors for Inachis io. And for more "complex" types? And for very similar species?

But what about reliability? Well, we will get a Cadastre in which half of the information will be erroneous. And why is it so necessary?

Most butterfly mapping projects in the US and Europe are built on trust. How else? How do I check this information? Allow only professional data to be mapped? Then we lose 90% of the information-amateur information... What's the way out? I would like to know your opinion.

You can estimate any percentage. There may be no errors for Inachis io. And for more "complex" types? And for very similar species?

You can only accept information here when you receive a photo of the instance. For doppelganger species, probably also genitalia. Of course, there will be some "difficult cases" that can be solved using a special method (I suggest discussing the options), but let's at least start by mapping out the "clearly recognizable types": Apollo, mnemosyne, io, mourner, etc. If you "cycle" on them, it is impossible to implement any ideas and projects.

And how will the admin know the accuracy of the point?

Trust. As Otakar Kudrna did. A very respected scientist in Europe. There will be an error with any method. No more than 1% of idiots .

Most butterfly mapping projects in the US and Europe are built on trust. How else? How do I check this information? Allow only professional data to be mapped? Then we lose 90% of the information-amateur information... What's the way out? I would like to know your opinion.
.....
You can only accept information here when you receive a photo of the instance. For doppelganger species, probably also genitalia.

You've practically answered your own question yourself.
To get reliable mapping, you need the following scheme:
Amateur captures (photo or collection) material -> specialist will determine this material -> put a dot.
And trust consists in the fact that the specialist does not question the integrity of the collector regarding the place of collection.

Let's not reinvent the wheel. Here's what it looks like in Europe: the Bedfodshire Butterflies website http://homepage.ntlworld.com/keith.balmer/BedsButts/html/, then the Introduction section and the Recording Butterflies subsection. No"sighting"
of information by specialists is required! More global project: Butterflies and Moths of North America http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/recent_sightings, click Recent Singlights Table and Recent Singlights Maps. This already requires confirmation of the information by the project coordinators.

Otakar Project-a Kudrna Mapping European Butterflies http://www.mapeurbutt.de/ again, it does not require confirmation of the information by the coordinators. I participated in it by writing to the author, "that such and such an amateur entomologist wants to add his own points..." And received forms to fill out (a weighty parcel-there was no Internet yet). Filled it out. Sent it away. Points published.

Two approaches. "Bureaucratic" and free... You can argue. I don't care what will be implemented in Russia (question: will it ever be? ), I just really want to" hand over " my information so that it doesn't disappear. You can again Otakar - at Kudrna, but still dream of a domestic project. Patriotism. You can call it this.

You can ask the Mapping European Butterflies project Manager Otakar Kudrna for one of the options to fill out the form: <Kudrna.MEB@t-online.de>.

By the way, a map from his website about the distribution of cabbage in Europe. In Ukraine, it is a terrible rarity! And in Belarus it is not found at all! The same information is available for lemongrass, io, Admiral, etc. Guess three times: why?

Two approaches. "Bureaucratic" and free...

I would say - qualitative and quantitative.
On lepidoptera.pl There are fewer points of cabbage patch on the same map of Poland. But there is hope that they are more reliable, because on this site only people who can identify the material are allowed to map.

By the way, a map from his website about the distribution of cabbage in Europe. In Ukraine, it is a terrible rarity! And in Belarus it is not found at all! ...... Guess three times: why?

You answered your own question:

On myself, it seems, too. In England, there are dozens of participants in the butterfly inventory in every county... On the other hand, it's interesting: you find constantly new species for the region, as they had 200 years ago. You can't die of boredom in Russia!
Just save the data, combine it, and multiply it in some big and bright common project!

About the cabbage patch smiled . Maybe the scarcity of information is due to the fact that many people do not consider it a butterfly (like me, it flies near the house, in the city) I couldn't resist :

Pictures:

Pieris_brassicae.JPG — (124.95к)

 
Just save the data, combine it, and multiply it in some big and bright common project!

I can do it on the macroid if you want. There is already a map there and linking by photo works. And not just butterflies.

About the cabbage patch smiled . Maybe the scarcity of information is due to the fact that many people do not consider it a butterfly (like me, it flies near the house, in the city) I couldn't resist :

Yes, there is no Ukraine and Belarus for all types. Russia - rare spots... There were simply no participants. We don't have many entomologists. And contacts with our European colleagues are weak...

I can do it on the macroid if you want. There is already a map there and linking by photo works. And not just butterflies.

I want to, of course. But there are technical issues. I'll write to your personal account.

Yes, there is no Ukraine and Belarus for all types. Russia - rare spots... There were simply no participants. We don't have many entomologists. And contacts with our European colleagues are weak...

Or maybe because "they" rarely or do not view our sites at all. On lepidoptera.ru I try to provide label data. Essno if he caught, then the label "Like Our Father" for me.

I want to, of course.

As a matter of fact, the points are already working in the photos:
http://macroid.ru/map.php?cat=1131
Well, unless you need some additional information or interface stuff...

But there are technical issues. I'll write to your personal account.

Write of course, it is always useful to listen to the opinion from the outside...

IMHO, search for info on Lepidoptera.ru inconvenient. Here I click on the Catalog - instead of the catalog I see a bunch of unnecessary thumbnails and a tiny window with a list of families. I select the desired family (also very inconvenient) - and instead of the list of types of Scoops, I see again a vinaigrette from thumbnails. In addition, the taxonomy is not observed - strelchatki, metallovidki, acontia are mixed... And where is the actual systematic catalog

In the Classification section.
Y-yes, a question for everyone - if something else seems inconvenient, do not hesitate to let us know, I will explain why this is so or fix it to make it better.

This post was edited by Asar - 14.01.2011 16: 54

As for the accuracy and tolerance of non-dead people, I think the main thing is that it should always be clear who provided the information, who determined the view, from the photo or not. It is desirable that points of different confidence levels visually differ (for example, in color). And then there is the question of quantity, without which the idea makes almost no sense at all.

As for the accuracy and tolerance of non-dead people, I think the main thing is that it should always be clear who provided the information, who determined the view, from the photo or not. It is desirable that points of different confidence levels visually differ (for example, in color).

How to determine who is a specialist and not a specialist? Create a jury? I, for example, have a higher biological education-a specialist? And my friend graduated from fizmat, but as a collector, he knows butterflies better than I do - isn't he a specialist?
And who will determine the credibility of the jury?
If we talk about bureaucracy, I prefer the American version: each region has its own cadastral coordinator, and he receives, checks and publishes all the data for his region. The overall project manager collects all coordinator data into a national database.
Options in the UK are often without co-ordinators - based on trust. The British are wise. There really aren't many crazy people...

It is desirable that points of different confidence levels visually differ (for example, in color).

Good idea, but ... see above. Who will determine this degree of trust and how?

The qualification is determined, for example, by comments to the same photos. If a person regularly comments , it is quite noticeable how well they know the subject. If a person does not comment, but wrote a book that everyone knows, then you can judge by the book. If the person himself is not very well known and does not comment on anything on the site (or comments little), then a photo of a dried collected specimen or a photo taken in nature can serve as confirmation. If there is no photo, then, of course, there may be less trust (all other things being equal). With all this, of course, no one is immune from errors and you can't get 100% accuracy. Therefore, the quantitative factor is very important.

More about qualifications: there is a problem here for new visitors to the site. It may not be immediately clear how much you can trust, for example, the definitions of a particular person. You can introduce voluntary testing for everyone (especially when there are more photos on the site, although three thousand may be enough) - consistent identification of types on photos with a strict response time limit, but with variants of these very answers. Again, the result will not be mega-reliable, but for rough estimates it may well be suitable. Again, an extra entertainment for the people.

Let's not reinvent the wheel. Here's what it looks like in Europe: the Bedfodshire Butterflies website http://homepage.ntlworld.com/keith.balmer/BedsButts/html/, then the Introduction section and the Recording Butterflies subsection.

Actually, nothing tricky - the form is almost the same as for publishing photos on Lepidoptera.ru. All that remains is the question of setting the dots, and everything else is technically simple.

More about qualifications: there is a problem here for new visitors to the site. It may not be immediately clear how much you can trust, for example, the definitions of a particular person.

In my opinion, it is worth dividing the issue of mapping into two questions.
First question:

the main thing is that it is always clear who provided the information,

In other words, you should allow everyone to specify points, but at the same time, any site user can know which of the participants added a particular point. Let's say I go to a website and select the following option:
- show points from all participants
- show only points from "verified" participants
-arbitrary selection of information only from specific participants (list of participants and checkboxes next to names).

And the second question is how to determine which of the participants should be included in the category of "experts".

In general, I agree. First, you need to hang up and test the mechanism of points on the map as such, and then divide users into conditional categories, especially since it is quite likely that users will switch from one group to another.

The qualification is determined, for example, by comments to the same photos. If a person regularly comments , it is quite noticeable how well they know the subject. If a person does not comment, but wrote a book that everyone knows, then you can judge by the book. If the person himself is not very well known and does not comment on anything on the site (or comments little), then a photo of a dried collected specimen or a photo taken in nature can serve as confirmation. If there is no photo, then, of course, there may be less trust (all other things being equal). With all this, of course, no one is immune from errors and you can't get 100% accuracy. Therefore, the quantitative factor is very important.

There are more than a dozen "people" of the highest qualification who do not "comment"on anything or anywhere here. Why there are no data on Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, because Kudrna and others like him are too lazy to read Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian literature. Maybe they don't know how to read at all. Or maybe they don't want to. All these distribution cards from European colleagues are squalor, with the rarest exceptions. I have seen only one Western entomologist who knows and can show Chukotka, Kamchatka and Sakhalin on a map at once - Wolfgang Speidel. People who write books about Europe and do not know elementary Russian magazines like Eversmania, Eurasian EJ - these are not scientists, I'm sorry. All projects for the distribution of butterflies in the Russian Federation (following the example of European ones) are still doomed to failure, because we have VERY few people, very few people who are not very busy with business (the rhythm of life is slightly different from the European one).
We need to start. But so far, for Koryakia (which is much larger than most European countries), there are no faunal data at all - what can we talk about? Although perhaps many people here perceive Russia as an area from the Neva to the Volga... Then you can do something. At the level of European lists.

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 19.01.2011 15: 34

But so far, for Koryakia (which is much larger than most European countries), there are no faunal data at all - what can we talk about?

What does the availability of data on Koryakia mean for the question of mapping points as such? Or is there someone claiming to create a strikingly detailed map of butterflies all over Russia, and if any region remains unaffected by the current global project, then you should not start? My vision is as follows: we need to have functionality that allows those who want to enter their data and get acquainted with other people's data (and the borders of the Russian Federation have nothing to do with it, by the way). And the fact that there will be a lot of information for one region, but not enough for another-this is inevitable. But this way, I think, will be much better than nothing.

Before putting points on the map, you need to analyze the available literature. This is a useful task, but I think we will not go further than the Moscow region and the Middle Volga. Do you own all the literature? Hundreds of people posted something, sort of commented on it... It is necessary to include it all. Take 1 Polyommatus icarus sensu lato species and trace it across the Russian Federation according to the literature. Show me how to work. Maybe the people will catch up. Do you know the Eastern European butterfly project-Ivy, Wink, Ruby, etc. I do not know the order of authors. I think they don't comment too much there. And you shouldn't have mentioned Koryakia. A white spot. Where do our brows look?

By the way, correct the word "kind "on your site to"birth".

Yakovlev, Wild Yuri suggested setting up a kind of inventory somewhere, where people (in particular, Wild Yuri itself) could enter their data, as well as view data entered by others. It is advisable to put down points on the map, for example, through the appropriate Google services. If we talk about butterflies, then the site Lepidoptera.ru it can serve as a base for such a case. To do this, you need to carry out a number of technical works. After the work is completed, if the service is convenient to use, people will be able to put down these very points.
For the primary result, you don't need data specifically for Koryakia or the Moscow Region, you don't need me to put down points for any type throughout Russia (I gave you this Russia), and you don't need to analyze the literature. We need a service and people who would like to enter data.
My part - first of all the service, you need to push yourself and comb the info on Google Maps. Entering the accompanying data, searching for it, etc. is not a problem.
About "childbirth" - thank you, it never occurred to me that the plural is formed there differently than in the case of troops.

Roman, gruzi photos and comments on cossides on Lepidoptera. ru

The site doesn't load properly.

My part - first of all the service, you need to push yourself and comb the info on Google Maps. Entering the accompanying data, searching for it, etc. is not a problem.

Peter, Google Maps is not friendly with Opera in my opinion, and this is annoying (a very popular browser).

The site doesn't load properly.

Me too. Apparently the problem is some.

The site doesn't load properly.

Indeed, it doesn't load at all! Returns: "Remote server or file not found" What is it?

Peter, Google Maps is not friendly with Opera in my opinion, and this is annoying (a very popular browser).

P.S. I recommend to take a closer look at this program: http://sasgis.ru/
Just download, unpack, configure this client and it is not tied to browsers (caution: "traffic is punishable").
Here is experimentally there its point one put:

Pictures:

pic_9.jpg — (221.83к)

P.S. I recommend to take a closer look at this program: http://sasgis.ru/
Just download, unpack, configure this client and it is not tied to browsers (caution: "traffic is punishable").
Here is experimentally there its point one put:

So how do you propose to work with collective information in this case, if the work takes place in a local application? Well, you put a dot - is this a dot on your computer or is it visible to everyone somewhere?
For example, I want to see this point of yours...

So how do you propose to work with collective information in this case, if the work takes place in a local application? Well, you put a dot - is this a dot on your computer or is it visible to everyone somewhere?
For example, I want to see this point of yours...

Yes, Boris, you're right about that: this won't do. Now I checked and on Yandex (where the card was taken from) it is not present (only visible from under this program). I wonder if you will put the program: Will it be visible to you?
But of course this is not an option, absolutely. A pity..... Here I did not think.

...
And it is completely unclear who represents this project at all and how firmly it stands on its feet.
http://sasgis.ru/o-proekte/
Some mythical "SAS group" without any coordinates, except for the only e-mail... I would be deeply hesitant to bet on it before. It is quite possible that just some single programmer (like me, Peter, etc.), who is interested in doing this today, and tomorrow he will give it up... Still, the giant Google looks more stable against this background. Offhand, I also didn't find any hints about the program interface (API for programming the site). In addition, the fact of the use of the project, Google maps and Yandex, etc. also makes you wonder - why get information second-hand (of unknown origin) if we can go straight to the source information.

...
And it is completely unclear who represents this project at all and how firmly it stands on its feet.
http://sasgis.ru/o-proekte/
Some mythical "SAS group" without any coordinates, except for the only e-mail... I would be deeply hesitant to bet on it before. It is quite possible that just some single programmer (like me, Peter, etc.), who is interested in doing this today, and tomorrow he will give it up... Still, the giant Google looks more stable against this background. Offhand, I also didn't find any hints about the program interface (API for programming the site). In addition, the fact of the use of the project, Google maps and Yandex, etc. also makes you wonder - why get information second-hand (of unknown origin) if we can go straight to the source information.

Yes, there are enthusiasts, of course. Nevertheless, I personally learned about this project in 2008 and since then I have been using it without any problems. And there are plenty of other maps out there, and updates are released fairly regularly. But this is not an option, of course.

Yes, Boris, you're right about that: this won't do. Now I checked and on Yandex (where the card was taken from) it is not present (only visible from under this program). I wonder if you will put the program: Will it be visible to you?
But of course this is not an option, absolutely. It's a pity..... Here I didn't think.

Well, even if it is visible, we don't need exactly that. If I have it visible in this way, it will be visible to the whole world, to all housewives, why should we clutter up the world map with our own points?.. And if all entomologists are inspired... the virtual Earth will turn into a continuous mess of insects and people will leave it... I.e. we need to store points in a local database (on the server lepidoptera.ru) and show them on the map displayed by the site. This service also exists in Google Maps, Google Earth, Google maps. On the macroid, I chose Google Earth because the Earth there is round after all (oddly enough).

The hosting provider's server where the site was hosted has died Lepidoptera.ru. The files have been restored, and the database (and, accordingly, all the site's functionality) should be restored this afternoon.

Now it's working, it seems.
I'll add: every other time.

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 20.01.2011 16: 06