To be determined: sections list for "Adding species info" page

Community and Forum → Website news and updates → To be determined: sections list for "Adding species info" page

Peter Khramov, 16.11.2015 21:53

When the site was just butterflies, you can use a single set of fields for all kinds of (distribution, time volley, Forage plants, etc.) Now that the site has a variety of insects, obviously, to be a universal set of fields that are relevant to all (or the vast majority) plus species (obsuzhdaemo) specific fields that appear only for some of them. I propose to discuss here both sets.The question is not only to the curators of groups (at least to them in the first place), but to all users of the website.

list of the basic fields for all kinds of insects is seen as follows:
1. Synonyms (synonyms, generic combinations, etc.)
2. The types of terrain
3. Etymology
4. Diagnosis / appearance. Variability. Differences from similar appearances
5.Geographical distribution
6. Environment (here it is supposed to transfer the information from the fields to the butterflies' flight of Time "and" Life Time caterpillars "," hibernating stage ", and these abolish field)
7. Additional Information
8. Information on the immature stages
9. The local name (in Russian)
10.The local name (English)

Also sovstava basic fields are invited to discuss whether they should complement specific to individual taxa (eg, description of different castes in social insects, a separate field for forage plants caterpillars butterflies, etc.) All make it into the framework of the already mentioned, the basic sections / fields.

ZYIt should be noted that in addition to extended information identifying the sources and formal features in species essays is supposed to make kratom section descriptions (created by users like curators or administrative group), where,osvnoe on extended data is a short textual description of the form (its basic properties, interesting features, unlike other). Those. all 3 levels of the data obtained:
1. A brief text description (drawn up by one person or a group connected with each other collaborators)
2. Formal features (numbers listed, and arrows)
3.Details of the sources of information on which claims are made. 1 and 2.

Comments

16.11.2015 22:38, Evgeny Komarov

2. It is necessary if there is information!
3. It is not necessary
4. It is necessary to think in pictures and that's another thing, where many photographers competent entomologists (including fans) gather in order to illustrate the differences. In fact, few actual implement. Or have theses of attributive tables enter.
6. Biology in a broad sense (i.e.including preferred habitats, food plants for herbivores, and so on. - Whatever that is).
8. It is not necessary to allocate, as it was important primarily for Lepidoptera, combined with 6.
9 and 10. Looking Russian (if accepted) and is similar to English. I think that the Arab, Greek, Chinese will not specify.
Prshelsya only on controversial issues (paragraphs.It is necessary to do already, and then when the plant anything other than Lepidoptera, information is added to nowhere!

16.11.2015 23:34, Evgeny Komarov

I agree with Alexander about the description of the "appearance". The right size, yes. And as far as these are the most common "description" formal and useless, it is possible to evaluate the descriptions of species in the Red Book. Under most of these descriptions can be a hundred kinds of fit.Well might look like to describe, say, a couple of hundred species of ground beetles of the genus Harpalus? They are in the vast majority apparently little distinguishable. Describe the number of Seta-bearing long, especially punctures ...? So we are back again to the Identification keys :) Yes, and there are no keys BM full even for Russia.But in this regard, discussions had an idea to make the field, which indicates outwardly similar views. Here it might be helpful.

17.11.2015 20:38, Evgeny Komarov

Alexander, Peter really discussed and came to a mutual understanding of the situation with the "diagnosis-description". At least I now understand it this way. Can even the example of my favorite ground beetles.Would and will do so probably (when the time is there):
Option 1 - "Well differs from all species (most likely have to specify the region because of the fauna of the former Soviet Union are not the information is not at all, and it can be just is not important) to (brief listing of the important features). The length of the body .... The body color can (can not) be varied ...A characteristic feature is the (listing the most important features). "
Option 2 (the most common) - "Externally similar to that occurring in the same territory (perechilenie related species with the" dogs "). The type A is different .... from different species .... In order to distinguish this species and species C and D is required to study the genital apparatus (male / female).Then again, size, color, etc. which introduces significant according to the information. "
It is here in the first approximation, I imagine.Links to sources or your own opinion / knowledge required, just as it is done without undue difficulty?
A further question to Peter and to all "on filling" "Why we do not give birth and other characteristics supraspecific taxa?" About the lack of generic synonyms mentioned here, but in fact there is nothing!It can (and should) at least give ranges of birth, the number of species. For Peter meditation one more thing: I really like that carabidae.org open any supraspecific taxa and see photos of his representatives. Example: http://carabidae.org/taxa/anthiinae-bonelli-1813. It is very informative.
About the type locality information should be entered, if it is. Empty fields are not criminals.I think that we ultimately have much more serious about descriptions (completely absent and not provided) supraspecific taxa (genera, families).
This whole argument on a given topic is quite "raw". All of us here at entuazizme, so you need to minimize the time spent on such things, but do them as possible without schlock.I tried to find the lowest cost option. Even though this will be "minimally expensive" only for the person who owns a decent group.
Well, about "empty" fields. It's okay not to see - will be an information or an expert - is full. Of course, if filled with 2-3 percent, it will be cool.

12.01.2016 20:42, Evgeny Komarov

Basil, here do not agree totally. Yes, we are not "academic research" site, but it should avoid unnecessary word creation. There are clear, the term "food items", "preferences" something from another opera.Since then, as there were added not only herbivores, the term "krmovye plant" is insufficient to describe the food specialization (a term, incidentally, can also be used). "Prey" or "specialty food" immediately apparent.One field in which we write for example: "The Imago polyphages are able to eat both animal and plant foods.There is also necrophagia larvae feed primarily on underground parts of different plants "(this is for many darkling beetles) or so:" Adults and larvae prey on caterpillars of various Lepidoptera, preferring gypsy moth caterpillars "(specifically for Krasotel fragrant. And so on and so on .P.If monophages - indicates the type of victim / host plant. Varian at the discretion which introduces information. Sam is now inclined to food specialization as the title!