1 (edited by Syrphus 03-12-2015 11:20:27)

Topic: New Leps list

Hello Chris.  I have just tried an import to R6 after updating to Dictionary ...3A. [That said ...37 originally - senior moment!]

I find that a lot of Lep binomials are not now recognised. E.g., Alcis repandata is not showing, though 3 of its races are. Similarly Argynnis aglaja, Erebia aethiops and others.

Why? I almost never get Leps reported to ssp level, so I want to import as the binomial, not the trinomial.  I can only do this now by going to one of the older lists.

This is surely a serious problem that needs to be fixed.

Murdo

2

Re: New Leps list

Hi Chris,

Concerned with the above post I checked myself and I concur with Murdo's findings. I'm aware the publication doesn't provide a binomial where a trinomial exists; however, for the NMRS I resolve every trinomial (mostly nominates) to the binomial where there is no ambiguity.

Interested to hear your thoughts :)

Best wishes,

Les Evans-Hill
Senior Data Officer, National Moth Recording Scheme

3

Re: New Leps list

I have also had the same problem as Murdo and had to use the older list. Most records I receive would not be at sub-species level

Gordon Barker
Biological Survey Data Manager
National Trust

4 (edited by kbalmer 03-12-2015 13:45:39)

Re: New Leps list

Gatekeeper is rather problematic too. If you look at the NBN Gateway (https://data.nbn.org.uk/Search?q=Pyronia) most records (579025) are for the binomial Pyronia tithonus (Linnaeus, 1771) and only 28749 are for the subspecies Pyronia tithonus subsp. britanniae (Verity, 1915).

The genus Pyronia has 579025 records, the same as for Pyronia tithonus (Linnaeus, 1771), so the 28749 records for Pyronia tithonus subsp. britanniae (Verity, 1915) don't appear to be for that genus? [Edit - On reflection I now presume the 28749 to be within the 579025].

In the new dictionary Pyronia tithonus doesn't exist, just two separate sub-species which few can distinguish. (In fact the sub-species show directly beneath the genus, not beneath a species).

In Recorder the common name "Gatekeeper" only matches to Pyronia tithonus subsp. tithonus (Linnaeus, 1771) so anyone matching using the common name will be matching to this sub-species which currently has zero NBN Gateway records.

In Recorder "Hedge Brown" doesn't match to anything.

Keith

5

Re: New Leps list

And of course the R6 Report Wizard is also unusable for these affected species. You can report the races, or the entire genus, but not the species, from the new Lep list.

M.

6

Re: New Leps list

Hi everyone

I had a feeling that the lep list would be a bit controversial - apologies if it is causing trouble. :)

We (all the UKSI managers) have always tried to remain true to the author's work and import what they give us in the layout that they have chosen. There is usually more flexibility when the list hasn't been printed as a hard-copy and I will advise authors and help people to create checklists if they are inexperienced. With the leps it was pretty clear that the authors had chosen to go with trinomials over binomials, where they exist, because that's how the data was given to me and that's how it has been printed in the hard-copy too.

It proved to be quite a headache for me when it came to checking the linkages because I had to keep allowing for trinomials linked directly to genera but I think I have managed to maintain the binomials in the master taxonomy (Organism table) and all of the usual binomials still exist in the system - they just don't appear if you select to record only against the new checklist.

Technically it wouldn't be impossible to insert binomials into the checklist - just fiddly and I would need to seek the author's permission to do that, as it is their work I would be changing. We have discussed other issues (such as adding authors to the higher rank names) and I also need to bring in the "Appendix A: Adventive" species as a separate list*. So work on the leps list is ongoing and what we have now isn't cast in stone. I just had to get the basics in (basic but still over 6000 rows!) and then move on to handle a few other issues such as the new freshwater algal checklist.

Let me raise the concerns with David Agassiz and see what he says. :)

Best wishes,
Chris R.

* as an aside, would people like the adventives listing in a separate checklist, as the authors have done, or would they like them adding as additional rows at the bottom of the existing checklist?

Chris Raper, Manager of the UK Species Inventory, Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity,
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD.  (tel: 020 7942 5894)
also Tachinid Recording Scheme (http://tachinidae.org.uk/)

7

Re: New Leps list

Thanks, Chris.  I glad it is not my problem!  I have actually just done a big import of leps to R6, and found that searching against the Agassiz list first, and then using the 2000 list, worked fine, and was not that fiddly.

M.

8

Re: New Leps list

<rant>

I can't help feeling we need to ditch the idea of "preferred lists" (and lists in general) in Recorder 6 - from what I understand, Chris sees the 2000 list and Agassiz checklist as "equal"/both "valid", but it appears in Recorder 6 as the Agassiz checklist is THE one to use. As Chris says, the binomials still exist in the system - why add them again?. I would prefer it if we had generic taxon groups against which to match, effectively hiding which list is being used.

</rant>

Charlie Barnes
Information Officer
Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

9

Re: New Leps list

Hi Chris,

Such a shame the authors didn't consult with the National Moth Recording Scheme. I could have requested that binomials be included in the electronic version of the Checklist. I don't doubt the authors' credentials; however, they are not data managers and should have at least consulted with those who are and would be using their Checklist on a daily basis.

Just mildly disappointed ;)

Best wishes,

Les Evans-Hill
Senior Data Officer, National Moth Recording Scheme

10

Re: New Leps list

Personally, I have always worked on the basis that recording will probably move away from recommended checklists and towards a more open system, using the master tables - Nameserver & Organism, which express the entire scope of UK taxonomy based around, but not limited to, the recommended checklists (rather like iRecord). But I know this might be contentious to some recording schemes (who prefer to limit recorders to approved taxonomic concepts) and it might make a lot of work for Mike to change Recorder6.

I think, to defend David, the data he gave to me was his master spreadsheet which he used to instruct the printers on laying out his checklist in the printed form. He probably didn't bear in mind that it would be used verbatim to record against. I am guessing that he would be open to the idea of adding the binomials, for recording purposes :)  I should probably have raised the issue with him but I also didn't foresee exactly how problematic it would be either.

Chris Raper, Manager of the UK Species Inventory, Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity,
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD.  (tel: 020 7942 5894)
also Tachinid Recording Scheme (http://tachinidae.org.uk/)

11

Re: New Leps list

Chris,

Indeed, in complete fairness it must be noted our thanks to David, Stella and Bob for their efforts in getting the new list compiled :)

Les Evans-Hill
Senior Data Officer, National Moth Recording Scheme

12

Re: New Leps list

Absolutely Les ... after manually updating our UKSI master taxonomy/synonymy I know very well how many changes there have been :D  ... it was a really massive update. It has incorporated a huge number of generic changes, which were long overdue and has tidied up the taxonomy massively :)

Chris Raper, Manager of the UK Species Inventory, Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity,
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD.  (tel: 020 7942 5894)
also Tachinid Recording Scheme (http://tachinidae.org.uk/)

13

Re: New Leps list

Hi Chris,

Happy New Year!

I was looking at an output report yesterday which lists all entries in the new Lepidoptera Checklist and I found a few examples very quickly of the new code number being allocated to the wrong trinomial; in all instances the code is allocated to the non-British nominate and not the appropriate British subspecies. I suspect this is probably the case throughout the checklist.

The examples I've seen so far are (all macros beginning with 'A'):

  • 65.016 Achlya flavicornis flavicornis

  • 72.027 Arctia villica villica

  • 73.063 Amphipyra berbera berbera

  • 73.126 Amphipoea fucosa fucosa

  • 73.230 Aporophyla australis australis

  • 73.324 Agrotis trux trux

In reporting, if the code number is required which quite often it is, it will not be resolved correctly.

Best wishes,

Les Evans-Hill
Senior Data Officer, National Moth Recording Scheme

14

Re: New Leps list

kbalmer wrote:

Gatekeeper is rather problematic too

It's also down as "Gatekeeper or hedge brown" for subsp. tithonus (but "Hedge Brown" for subsp. brit.)

Charlie Barnes
Information Officer
Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

15

Re: New Leps list

All,

I believe the issue I reported above affects all species where the nominate subspecies in non-British.

I've also found another worrying trend whereby where the nominate subspecies is British AND there are more than one British subspecies; the nominate is now just a binomial (and not a trinomial following the current checklist trend) and the non-nominate British subspecies have been named such with their specific missing e.g. for Common Pug Eupithecia vulgata scotica is now the binomial =Eupithecia scotica. Yellow Shell is another example.

Best wishes,
Les

Les Evans-Hill
Senior Data Officer, National Moth Recording Scheme

16

Re: New Leps list

Chris,

You previously asked "...would people like the adventives listing in a separate checklist, as the authors have done, or would they like them adding as additional rows at the bottom of the existing checklist?"

I'm not worried from an NMRS point-of-view but as a County Recorder I would like the see them added to the UKSI which ever way is easier of more convenient :)

Les

Les Evans-Hill
Senior Data Officer, National Moth Recording Scheme

17

Re: New Leps list

Hi Les

OK, no problem - when I get a minute I will check them out. If there are any particular species that are holding you up in any way then just give me those and I will add them immediately :)

Best wishes,
Chris R.

Chris Raper, Manager of the UK Species Inventory, Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity,
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD.  (tel: 020 7942 5894)
also Tachinid Recording Scheme (http://tachinidae.org.uk/)

18

Re: New Leps list

Hi everyone,
I'm pleased to discover that it is just not me who is having problems with the new list. I very rarely receive lepidoptera records in anything other than binomial format. I've just done a "housekeeping" exercise on over 26,000 accumulated records and I suspect that it they are now in a worse state than previously, as I now have to go back and edit all the trinomials.
I appreciate up-dating the taxonomic lists is a thankless task, but please try and consult with those who manage the records before major changes are introduced.

Christine
OHBR

19

Re: New Leps list

All,

An update from me - I now have no choice but to upgrade to the new dictionary.

It has become apparent that since 3 July 2015 to-date, all records of members of the Lymatriidae family have not been exported to the NBN Gateway. On checking this, the family Lymantriidae is flagged as redundant in the Organism table and as such I'm presuming this is why these species records are not exporting, since the Organism table was updated to flag Lymantriidae as redundant? There was no way I could have seen that coming?

Normal reporting isn't affected as I'm not using an export filter which I presume in the process checks the validity of the appropriate names. About 41,000 records are known to be missing; however, I need to re-export over 1,000,000 records (51 surveys where a survey represents a VC) in order to address this.

I have also done much testing on the NMRS database in a development environment testing the new Lepidoptera dictionary and although it is working, it is far from satisfactory. I know Chris and his team are working to address this - really hoping the missing species binomials are implemented (as everyone is here!) as referring back to the Bradley checklist to resolve these isn't really robust, considering in a report where codes are required, there will be a mixture of Bradley and Agassiz codes in the report output! Plus also remembering the Agassiz code number in many instances is attributed to the non-British nominate and not the British subspecies.

Looking forward to an update.

Best regards,
Les

Les Evans-Hill
Senior Data Officer, National Moth Recording Scheme

20

Re: New Leps list

If you are using the family Lymantriidae as the basis for the export, this will no longer have any children, so would no longer  pick up the species.  I am not sure what we could do in R6 about this - even to flag up a problem. Possibly, where major changes like this are made we could flag up what has changed - ie if any Taxon_Version keys have become redundant.

Mike Weideli
Littlefield Consultancy - IT Consultants

21

Re: New Leps list

Hi Mike, between the time Lymatriidae were made redundant in the Organism table and the new dictionary upgrade I had absolutely no reason to believe there would be a problem exporting these species as they always exported previously. Yes, flagging keys that become redundant would be a good idea, users can then look into how to workaround this, in my case I could have filtered to the specifics in that family as those remained valid.

Les Evans-Hill
Senior Data Officer, National Moth Recording Scheme