1 Topic by DGERC

  • DGERC
  • DGERC
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • From: SWSEIC
  • Registered: 31-05-2006
  • Posts: 232

Topic: Common names for unidentified amphibians

As a verifier for amphibians on iRecord in my area I am noticing quite a few records being incorrectly assigned to a taxa due to the english names in the species dictionary being incorrect/imprecise. For example records entered by an inexperienced recorder as 'Newt' end up being allocated to the taxon 'Triturus' which is incorrect. A similar thing happens with frog'. It would be helpful if the english names for the following were adjusted so that users entering records by common names were more clearly are more clear about what they are selecting:

Rana (Genus) - common name of 'Frog' should not be assigned to this genus
Triturus (Genus) - common name of 'Newt' should not be applied to this genus
Salamandridae - This could have a common name of 'Unidentified newt/salamander')
The sub-family Pleurodelinae is not used in the taxon hierarchy which would be the natural home for 'unidentified newt)

Sorting out the 'frog' and 'newt' english names would certainly help reduce errors and reduce the amount of time verifiers spend having to correct these.

Mark

Mark Pollitt
SWSEIC (formerly DGERC)

DGERC's Website

2 Reply by Matt Smith (edited by Matt Smith 29-10-2019 11:54:23)

  • Matt Smith
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • Registered: 21-11-2007
  • Posts: 119

Re: Common names for unidentified amphibians

As an amphibian verifier I don't have any problems with the current name use.  Where would you suggest that "Frog" and "Newt" records be assigned to, bearing in mind some recorders may not realise we have more than one newt species or that, in the UK at least, most of the time a "Frog" = a "Common Frog"?   "Newts" would either go to "Triturus" or "Lissotriton", I would not want to see the (confusing) sub family name Pleurodelinae" suddenly making an appearance on records.

Unless records of this type have a photo, in which case the Verifier can either ask the Recorder to edit the record or Re-det it themselves, then surely they are just given a "Plausible" status which equates to "no further action / use of this record".  I would vote for "no change" in this respect.