We don't need these first two suggested pseudotaxa.  For the butterflies, there is a genus which you can use.  For the voles there is a family.  If they are adopted, I will want a few myself: Englishman's Eagle for any soaring bird seen N of Perth; Something That Might Be A Bee (but might be almost any flying insect); Grey Seal/Common Seal/Fishing Float.  Others will follow.

M.

I remember you are not a fan of these types of aggregates Murdo from the Great Bumbleebee Controversy. ;)

If no one else wants/needs the two aggegates or the current policy is to avoid adding aggregates where possible then please ignore, we have user added taxa in our R6 system for them for the handful of records we have (21 of the small/gvw white, 15 of vole sp.). We prefer not to take these up to genus/family and mix them up with large whites and mice since that would be losing information and we want to use our database to store data that is as accurate and precise as possible.

I can see no justification for these pseudotaxa at all, for the reason Rob says.  Once this starts, there is no end to it.  An aggregate animal taxon is fine where, for example, one 'species' is split into two or more species, and there is no way to reassign the older records (a mass of invertebrates, and even the Pipistrelles and Long-eared Bats).  What was suggested for the Bombus lucorum / terrestris pair (repeatedly, in different arenas) was to accommodate difficulty or impossibility in ID to species.  That one got through - but it is nonsensical, because you have to include with that pair B. soroeensis.  And if these, why not the brown carders?  And then with all the trendy 'Citizen Science' stuff you have to think about Eristalis intricarius, Volucella bombylans and other mimics.  Before you know it you are swimming in treacle.

Apart from the Bombus aberration, I can only find one other - the Comic Tern.  Fortunately we don't have Reed/Marsh/Blyth's Reed Warbler, Hen / Monty's Harriers (though there is an 'Indet. Harrier' which is given as Chordeiles, the US nighthawks, so there is a story somewhere there and a bit of work for Chris!), Glaucous / Iceland Gull, Willow-Chiff, and a mass of others.

There is no end to the possible combinations and permutations of potential imprecise IDs at species level.  As Rob says, the higher taxon and a comment is all that is needed.  To do anything else makes a mockery of what should be a high-quality scientific resource.

M.

Of course the alternative, for Recorder 6 users at least, is to add them yourself (although you won't be able to transfer the data to anyone)

We have added all of these (both "psuedo"taxa and new to science/GB) a long while ago to our own R6 system - one of the many useful things about the flexibility of R6. :) No scientific mockery intended, we are proud of the care we take in balancing taxonomy and field recording. It was just these were picked up by NBN Gateway staff from our latest datasets so thought we would raise. The challenges of what we allow people to record could be a timely debate for the NBN as a whole; there are certainly a lot of genus and higher records going in to iRecord.

I am no taxonomist or ecologist but I thought that sensu lato/stricto was what was used for splits rather than an aggregate? e.g. pipistrelle https://data.nbn.org.uk/Taxa/NHMSYS0020001356 vs bramble https://data.nbn.org.uk/Taxa/NBNSYS0000003328

Chris - in case it gets lost, please do add Empria basalis Lindqvist, 1968 it would be nice to have that on the Gateway.

Murdo says: “Apart from the Bombus aberration, I can only find one other - the Comic Tern.”

What about:
Aythya ferina/fuligula agg. [NBNSYS0100001880]
Boloria selene/euphrosyne  [NHMSYS0020083749]
Rhaphium appendiculatum/caliginosum [NHMSYS0020213815]
Hilara flavipes/obscura [NHMSYS0020083445]

.... to list the ones that have come to my attention this week?

Years ago when I was collating records for purely ‘academic’ purposes I would routinely dismiss all records not identified to species level as being of no interest. As more and different uses began to be made of our data I came to appreciate the value of ‘higher taxon’ records in some circumstances. However, in doing so it is surely best practice to represent the original identification as accurately and narrowly as possible in order to maximise its validity. So to represent a vole sighting as anything from a rat to harvest mouse by allocating it to the family ‘Muridae’ as Murdo suggests, is I think less useful than representing it as an ‘unidentified vole’ within the Muridae.

I am not sure I see any practical difference in terms of the Gateway in recording non-specific identifications at higher taxa level whether they are recognised taxonomic groupings or species aggregates within the systematic hierarchy – either way the treacle will be just as sticky and the ‘noise’ around species level records much the same. I agree though that being precise in representing records as accurately as possible is more work.

Just on the issue of aggregating white butterfly records, Emmet and Heath give the wingspans of Pieris as:
- Green-veined White: 40-52mm
- Small White: 38-57mm
- Large White: c. 58mm for males, c. 63mm for females

Given that this could mean a difference in wingspan of as little as 1mm between Small and Large whites, I would argue that if you haven't seen it clearly enough to know whether it is Small or Green-veined, then you haven't seen it clearly enough to rule out Large either. Therefore recording at genus level seems to me the most appropriate response for this aggregate.

Of course, I've also seen people confuse Pieris spp. with female Brimstones on a number of occasions ...