I've only just come across this thread, otherwise I would have replied before.  I'm not sure how much I can say here without wandering into spam, so I'll try and keep to questions opened in this thread.

Yes, FieldNotes is a database application for Windows, aimed at increasing public participation in wildlife recording.
It includes a number of features which allow users to explore and understand the (sometimes complex) datasets and classification systems commonly encountered in recording.

Users are encouraged to submit their records to local recording centres; we have recently supplied LRC's with a pre-release version of the software and asked for feedback on the data-transfer process.  Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions received so far.

I'd be pleased to answer any other questions either here or through the forum email.

Simon Skidmore

Green Man Software

We sent a copy of the pre-release software to the Data manager at Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Centre (Elm Tree Court) in early January - I can't find any trace of feedback so I'm not sure if it reached the right person.  I can send another copy to you personally if you can't lay your hands on it.

Regarding the data flow, most of your questions will probably be answered best by playing about with the software.
The software and accompanying documentation recommends that recorders submit data to LRCs (via County Recorders if appropriate); however the decision is in the hands of users who may, for example, prefer to supply their records to one of the popular recording schemes.  The underlying database includes a fairly comprehensive list of LRC's and other potential recording 'hubs' (including NBN) but no central warehouse.

I talked with Charles Hussey at NHM when the UKSpecies website went live about 6 years ago, and at that time our database contained about 2000 more common names than the NHM dictionary.  These numbers may be out of date now with the work on the R6 dictionary - I haven't had time to chase up details.  Do you have outline figures?

Simon Skidmore

Green Man Software Ltd

Hi Simon

Thanks for replying. I have checked and your pre-release version has arrived here, but appears to have been overlooked as we don't have anyone who is called Data Manager here.

I have now tracked down the disk and will try to find some time to give it a look. I will of course supply feedback when I am able.

Well I have to say that I agree David, but it doesn't do any harm to see what others are trying.

Of course many recorders don't have the experience or desire to cope with a system as complex as R6 and in my experience they can tend to be unwilling to make the leap when they have a system which works well for them. MapMate, for example, remains popular for many users, despite the fact that it can increase the amount of work needed by LRCs to get data from there into R6.

Indeed one of the reasons why the learning curve for R6 appears so steep is because it has been designed partly with the need to deal with data from all kinds of sources. I sometimes wonder if there isn't room for a R6-lite version with limited functionality, which would give an easy interface for data entry, backed by R6 validation & taxon dictionary & simple export options to produce output suitable for easy import to R6.

However I generally come to the conclusion that a one size fits all approach is a fantasy in such a community of mavericks.

iRecord? You can build your own if you don't like the idea of using the BRC version: https://indicia-docs.readthedocs.org/en … index.html

I also agree with David - the non-standard dictionary is a problem. If the NHM Species Inventory were the standard dictionary in FieldNotes, and if sync with Recorder were a fundamental feature, I'd be very interested. As it stands, I've not tried using it yet. Taxonomy is complex business, and a carefully managed, NBN compatible species dictionary is number 1 on my requirements list. Simon: I'd suggest getting in contact with Chris Raper, who is new-ish manager of the NHM Species Inventory. He should be able to supply you with some figures and perhaps advise with integrating the NHM lists into your software (he's a software developer, so will understand the challenge).

See http://www.nbn.org.uk/News/Latest-news/ … ction.aspx and http://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewforum.php?id=16

Re. the relative difficulty of setting up and using Recorder 6, I agree that, once configured and working, it is pretty easy to use. Reporting and analysis is rather bewildering for the new user, as is the 'blank slate' you get when you first install. The biggest difficulty I have found in supporting Recorder users is in upgrading dictionaries and the software itself. These processes always feel fraught with risk, and will sometimes go wrong. Mapmate does a much better job in this regard I think (although that still is far from perfect). My feeling is that web-based recording is the future for general use. The user doesn't have to worry about upgrades, computer specifications, platform, data transfer, backup or dictionaries. Everything is handled by the system. I wouldn't be surprised if, within 10 years, the majority of software we use on a day-to-day basis is web-based and/or 'cloud' enabled. And that's a conservative estimate.

Well, this looks like an opportunity to make myself generally unpopular.

First I should say that I consider the NHM/NBN Species dictionary a phenomenal achievement - to my mind probably the most significant advance in ecology/biodiversity this century, and I salute Charles Hussey and everyone else who made it happen.

I also think it's quite astonishing that this database can be used directly in applications like Recorder, extending its impact throughout the recording community.  I'm not quite sure who had the vision to keep both in step, but it too is no mean achievement and worthy of congratulation.

However (and I can almost see hands reaching for keyboards now) I think it is very unwise to adopt a 'one size fits all' policy by insisting that all future applications use the NBN Species dictionary, regardless of form or function.  The Species dictionary is a highly scientific data compilation which holds information very precisely - more precisely than a lot of everyday ecologists require - and in enormous detail - again much more detail than required on an everyday field trip.  There are times when this degree of precision is absolutely necessary, and it is fundamentally important that this information is collated in a single resource somewhere.  But there are also times when this complexity is far in excess of that required, and can positively hamper mentoring, data handling and tool development.  This is even more relevant when we are dealing with people who are new to recording.

Look at some of the numbers:

By referencing ever more specialised lists, the NBN dictionary has grown from less than 50,000 odd species a decade ago to its present size of nearly double that.  However this increase reflects extension to ever more poorly-studied groups - including single celled and microscopic organisms, cryptic species (which are impossible to tell apart without lab. analysis), etc.  Take, for example, freshwater copepods  - of which several hundred UK species are now included.  Many species in this order are fairly common, widespread and easy to spot (ie. macroscopic) if you're looking.  But how relevant to new recorders?  Personally I'd be pleased if one said 'copepod' (correctly).

Only about 11,000 UK species (of ~80,000 collated so far) have common names.  These by their nature are the species that people are familiar with on an everyday basis.  These are (primarily) the species that cause an outcry when numbers start decreasing.  Conversely that means that >85% of species in the NBN Species dictionary are known by one (or more) scientific names only.  How familiar are new recorders with everyday species, let alone those known only by latin names (what is the difference between and Hapalaraea pygmaea and Hatschekia pygmaea, and where do you find out?).  How many species without common names appear in mainstream field guides, identification books and keys?  Very few.

Consider, as well, the various trade-offs involved in designing the Species database.  The choices of hierarchy, structure and data format in the NBN Species dictionary are inevitably constrained by its scientific role.  However many of the features which are particularly important to new recorders require a more flexible approach.  Common names in particular have a number of idiosyncrasies which cause real pain in pattern-matching and search functions (see http://www.greenmansoftware.co.uk/produ … _frame.htm).  In some cases the over-riding scientific requirements dictate a database structure in which it is difficult or impossible to implement such flexible search features.  For new recorders, I personally would rank the ability to search independently of punctuation differences (Lady's Smock / Ladys-smock), and to perform inexact ('fuzzy') pattern matching (Pilosella aurantiaca / Pillosela aurantiaca) far higher than the need to enumerate all taxonomic revisions of benthic cyclopoid copepods.

Lastly - because I'm not sure if I'm running out of space on this thing - there is the problem of what you want new recorders to record.  It's easy to forget what a steep learning curve recording can be.  There's the process of identifying species themselves. Then there is a broad range of 'esoteric' concepts to get to grips with -grid references, tetrads, vice counties, priority habitats(who understands those?) , Phase 1 and 2 habitat surveys to name a few.  Presenting ~80,000 potential species ( of which 85% are almost a complete mystery) is not only likely to put a significant number of people off, but also has the potential to lead to confusion and errors.  Who's going to check a record of Acanthocyclops bicuspidatus (widely distributed throughout the UK) submitted by a new user?  It's important to realise that there's a limit to what's useful to those starting in recording, and that more is not necessarily better.

Simon Skidmore
Green Man Software Ltd

Simon, many thanks for the post and don't worry, a healthy discussion shouldn't be a route to unwarranted unpopularity around here.

You make good points. I'd say that many of the issues you cite are related more to implementation of dictionaries, rather than a limitation of the dictionary itself. Fuzzy matching, alternative names, simplification, etc. are all able to be tackled at the application layer. It is wiser to have a complex system that can be simplified rather than simple system that is inadequate in many circumstances.

As Mike says, the key (no pun intended) is to use an agreed unique identifying key (i.e., the NHM Taxon Version Key) because use of species names as unique IDs is unreliable, even for beginners. Especially for beginners. That is really what standardisation boils down to: agreeing to use a standard key. The rest is just gravy.

Aside: As I understand it, the complex nature (taxon versions, multiple checklists, etc.) of the NHM Species Inventory was a conscious design decision to tackle the problems of one size not fitting all and the somewhat transitory, unreliable nature of taxonomic names.

It is also true that the NHM dictionary did not come about to serve the needs of new recorders. It was developed in large part by organisations which were having to deal, on a daily basis with datasets from highly disparate sources which posed, often highly esoteric taxonomic problems. Problems that were being addressed in bulk, by individuals who, if they had any taxonomic experience, probably only understood a small range of the great diversity being presented.

It can be a pain to use sometimes, and it still doesn't work for everyone all the time, but a huge amount of work has gone in and still does to create a very useful tool. I'm sorry that I still haven't had time to give any  attention to Field Notes etc., but as a general observation I can't help but say that the proliferation of recording software and especially apps at the moment is not helping data flows much if it doesn't take the NHM dictionary into account.

Of course if we all had to take Recorder 6 out into the field we would never get anything done, but I have to say that until someone comes up with an app with voice recognition, I will probably be sticking with pen and paper.

Recorder can convert names (that is genus and species) to TVK's, but the problem is that names are not a reliable way of identifying taxa.  You need to know the author and the attribute (eg s. lat) to do the match accurately  in some cases , and in a  few the same  name can have a different meaning depending on  which list is appears on (ie different list authors give different meanings to the same name). For example  when splitting takes place a  name can have a different meaning, before and after the split.  When any  list is constructed there is an implied meaning to the names and ideally there should be some meta data (a publication (book, journal), or at least a date effective) which defines what  is meant for the names on that  list.  Having the TVK avoids any ambiguity, as long as the list author has taken care to ensure that the TVK they are using ties up with the meaning implied by their list.  Using the TVK is therefore a safer way of  identifying data.  Currently Recorder doesn't by default import TVk's, but it  can be set up to do this, and it will be a feature in a release planned for May.

Well, in the true tradition of software development a "May release" does, of course, mean the last day in May.

The first general release of FieldNotes is now available as a shareware (evaluation) version with a 60-day free trial period, so you can install it alongside your current recording software and see how it compares. 

The software can be downloaded by following the following link:

http://www.fieldnotes.co.uk/product/download.htm

and is also available on CD by request (again, follow the link above).  If you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us via the Green Man Software website, or using the contact information in the software.

If you installed the pre-release version of FieldNotes (distributed to LRC's earlier this year), please read the following information carefully.

Due to feedback from the live-testing phase, we have made a significant change to the database structure.  You should delete the existing database (using the file | delete database menu option) before installing the new version of FieldNotes. 

Simon Skidmore
Green Man Software Ltd

This summer I saw several school websites that had used FieldNotes wildlife software to survey some of the local plants and animals and show the results online.  I'd like to propose doing some similar field survey work at our school, but I don't have experience of the software side.

Does anyone know if there is a scheme or wildlife organisation that coordinates these wildlife surveying projects in schools?  Or someone who can provide information / help to getting going?  I guess a tutorial would be asking too much!

Thanks for your help,

Dave