UK Hoverflies (Syrphidae)'s 일지

2023년 11월 23일 (목)

The Annotatathometer is set! Here goes...

Last updated 0001

Hi all,

Looking forward to seeing what we can achieve this weekend. I really have no idea! Rather than spamming you all with notifications all weekend, I'll add regular updates in this post about every 4 hours during the day - including the 'annotatathometer' below! If you've missed it, details of this weekend's team activity are here. Doesn't matter if you want to try to do three, or three thousand, it all counts! I hope this proves a good opportunity for some new people to have a go :)

And here are the identify portal links:

All UK hoverflies needing sex annotation
UK hoverflies needing sex annotation, excluding the difficult groups

All UK hoverflies needing life stage annotation

New Sex Annotations = 4858
New Life Stage Annotations = 7364

24-Nov 12:00 A decent start, especially as most of us are presumably at work! Both types of annotation have already increased by 1%

24-Nov 16:00 Life Stage annotations have overtaken sex annotations (as it should be really - no observation needs to be without life stage, but sex determination is sometimes hard and occasionally impossible).

24-Nov Really nice progress so far this evening! Great work everyone involved, it's really adding up. Hope it makes you feel that the return for your effort is being multiplied! I wonder if we can get close to 40% by the end of the day?

25-Nov 00:01 A really productive first day methinks! Over 12 000 annotations added between us - thanks everyone. And yes, 'Life Stage' just made it over the line to 40.01% (sex is on just over 38%). Let's see what the weekend proper enables :-)

Posted on 2023년 11월 23일, 22시 27분 43초 UTC by matthewvosper matthewvosper | 댓글 0 개 | 댓글 달기

2023년 11월 17일 (금)

November Annotatathon!

Hello all!

Now the season is upon us when we can engage the UK hoverfly pile in battle! it's always more fun to work as a team, when we can support each other and see more progress getting made.

In that spirit I'd like to declare next weekend (Fri 24 - Sun 26) our first UK Syrphidae Annotatothon! Working together, let's how many sex and life stage annotations we can add over the course of the weekend.

We now have 72 members of the project - thank you! I am aware that people have joined the project for a variety of reasons - not all with the aim of adding annotations and IDs - and that's fine. But I'm after those of you who might like to have a go :-). I've said a few times that adding annotations is an easy way in to contributing to iNat data. So here's a few snippets of info that might encourage you!

Did you know? If everyone in this project annotated just 6 observations per week, that would be enough to keep up with the average rate of new UK hoverfly observations across the year, that's less than one per day! (9 per day and we'd keep up with the world!!) The same is true for IDs of course.

Currently, just over 30% of UK hoverfly observations have sex annotations, and the same for life stage. That's already an improvement since before the project started. About 50 000 remain unannotated. Let's see how far we can shift that dial next weekend! Any contribution large or small is welcome (we can't break down who did what anyway!)

For more information on how to do this see Determining and annotating the sex of hoverflies in iNat. And remember, the easiest way to add annotations is on the annotations tab on the identify page, using the keyboard shortcuts. 'la' for life stage=adult, 'll' for life stage=larva, 'lp' for life stage=pupa, 'sm' for sex=male, 'sf' for sex=female and 'sc' for sex=cannot be determined, cursor key to move onto the next observation.

Feel free to contact me or @rkl for help information or advice before or during the weekend. Tag one of us into an observation if you want another opinion.

Here are URLs that you can use next weekend:

All UK hoverflies needing sex annotation
UK hoverflies needing sex annotation, excluding the difficult groups

All UK hoverflies needing life stage annotation

Feel free to use the comments section below to discuss anything you want about this :-)

Happy annotating!

[PS This month I've managed to complete the annotation of all the Sphaerophoria observations in Europe: Have a look at the sex and life stage graphs on the Sphaerophoria taxon page to see how much benefit there is to data quality compared to a less well annotated genus like Eristalis (you'll have to filter to Europe or UK yourself if you're on the international site).]

Posted on 2023년 11월 17일, 15시 39분 25초 UTC by matthewvosper matthewvosper | 댓글 0 개 | 댓글 달기

2023년 11월 01일 (수)

State of the Syrphs - 1-Nov-2023

Hello all!

It's clear now that we are finally in identifying season! For the first time since the project started the number of UK hoverfly observations needing ID has actually fallen (albeit only by 1%).

As we move into the long dark evenings and do a bit more identifying etc, do please feel free to use the comments section of these articles to share your own plans, experiences or questions!

Identification

Let's break down this slightly reduced Needs ID pile. Both Syrphinae and Eristalinae are down about 1%, but this masks a bigger (3%) fall in Syrphini, partly cancelled out by rises in Bacchini and Melanostomini. 26 genera are down, compared to only 13 up (and 31 unmoved), which is great. The biggest fallers (with >50obs) are Sphaerophoria (-24%), Dasysyrphus (-20%), Rhingia (-17%), Meliscaeva (-14%), and Parhelophilus (-9%). The fall in Sphaerophoria is particularly pleasing - the other really big genera moved as follows: Eristalis (-1%), Eupeodes (0%) and Syrphus (+4%).

If you want to try your hand at identification check out the resources page, just doing a few will get you started, feel free to tag me or another of the recent top identifiers if you want your ID checked or have another question - you can do this by putting @ in front of the username e.g. @matthewvosper. You might want to consider adopting one simple genus (learning all 280ish UK hoverfly species is a rather daunting task), or using the Syrphus and Sphaerophoria guides in this project. Alternatively you could try moving observations that are currently identified only as 'family Syrphidae' to whatever lower level you feel comfortable with. So many options :) - there are handy URLs here to find the observations that still need annotations or IDs. I'm continuing to attack Sphaerophoria this month, feel free to join me!

Annoation

On the annotatons front, we are continuing to make a huge difference. Well done everyone involved!

Adding annotations to observations is a great way to get started contributing to iNat and the UK recording scheme. Read the annotations and sexing hoverflies articles if you think you might like to chip in!

All the best to everyone.

(All data compiled on 31-Oct-23)

Posted on 2023년 11월 01일, 00시 00분 21초 UTC by matthewvosper matthewvosper | 댓글 0 개 | 댓글 달기

2023년 10월 02일 (월)

State of the Syrphs - 1-Oct-2023

Hello all. The pace of incoming hoverfly observations has slowed significantly as autumn draws in, and many of us will be spending less time observing and more time identifying. If you're wondering whether you could get started adding annotations or identifications yourself, this autumn and winter would be a great time to test the water!

You could add annotations. It's easy to tell if a hoverfly is adult or larva (no wings, head or legs!), or perhaps you might like to try determining the sex of hoverflies. If you want to try your hand at identification check out the resources page, just doing a few will get you started, feel free to tag me or another of the recent top identifiers if you want your ID checked or have another question - you can do this by putting @ in front of the username e.g. @matthewvosper. You might want to consider adopting a simple genus (learning all 280ish UK species is a rather daunting task), or using the Syrphus and Sphaerophoria guides in this project. Alternatively you could try moving observations that are currently identified only as 'family Syrphidae' to whatever lower level you feel comfortable with. So many options :) - there are handy URLs here to find the observations that still need annotations or IDs.

It might be nice at some point over the next few months to have a bit more of an 'event' where we can work together on the IDs. Let me know in the comments if you have any particular ideas. I'm planning to attack Sphaerophoria over the next few weeks, so feel free to join me!

Updates

In the last month I've added a posts about Identifying UK Syrphus and Sphaerophoria. I've also added two notes to the resources page, one to the effect that the third edition of Ball and Morris has been delayed, the other is a new book Hoverflies of Britain and North-west Europe by Dutch specialists Sander Bot and Frank de Muetter which is due out later this month. Looks quite cool.

Annotations

The proportion of observations annotated in September remains at a similar level to what it's been since the project started. It's early days, but if we can settle at this sort of level, then this is already a tremendous improvement in the quality of data we are sending to the HRS. Of course it could be higher still: Adding annotations to observations is a great way to get started contributing to iNat and the UK recording scheme. Read the annotations and sexing hoverflies articles if you think you might like to chip in!

Identifications

There haven't been any enormous movements in the NeedsID pile. It's got a little bit bigger, mainly driven by a 7.5% increase in Eristalis observations - presumably that's the big autumn generation of tenax dining on the blooming ivy.

(all data compiled on 1-Oct-23)

Posted on 2023년 10월 02일, 10시 41분 04초 UTC by matthewvosper matthewvosper | 댓글 0 개 | 댓글 달기

2023년 09월 22일 (금)

Identifying Sphaerophoria in the UK from Photos

Continuing this little series on the neediest hoverfly genera, we come to Sphaerophoria. Another genus that is frequently observed but often unidentifiable.

Only 'two and a half' of the UK's 11 species are typically identifiable in photos: S loewi, S rueppellii and male S scripta. Thankfully S scripta is by far the commonest species, so a lot of males can be identified.

There is also an observation field called 'Sphaerophoria identifiable group', which Caleb Scholtens produced to help categorise the North American species. I asked him to add some values useful for European species, which he kindly did. You might want to use this because it makes it possible to search for the rarer species in iNat even if we can't identify them: but unfortunately it will not feed through to the HRS. There are 5 values that are relevant to UK (and European) species: Complete lateral scutum stripes, Partial lateral scutum stripes, "cleoae" pattern, interrupta-group, and cf. S scripta. 'Partial lateral scutum stripe' isn't very useful in the UK because the two species it includes are both identifiable to species (S. loewi and S rueppellii).

Distinguishing Sphaerophoria, and differences between the sexes.

Sphaerophoria are very elongate black and yellow hoverflies. They have a clear yellow stripe down the sides of at least the front half of the scutum. Males have a massive round genital capsule on the underside of the tip of their abdomen (hence the name 'Globetails'), which is diagnostic for the genus. Most males are very straight-sided, although some have the abdomen constricted near the front. Female abdomens have more convex sides, and the abdomen tip is rather pointed; also the frons usually has a fairly broad black stripe descending from the vertex (male frons is all yellow). Like most hoverflies (and all Syrphini), the eyes of males are connected, but the eyes of females are clearly separated (though the area between the eyes is black, which can sometimes make it hard to see).

Is the scutum stripe 'complete' or 'partial'?

One useful marker in identifying Sphaerophoria is whether the stripe at the side of the scutum stretches the full length of the scutum ('complete'), or whether it stops at the wing base ('partial'). Care needs to be taken with this because the stripe can be much fainter beyond the wing base - this still counts as 'complete'. When 'partial' it is truly shining black behind the the wing bases. A partial scutum stripe is a feature that separates both species in which both sexes are identifiable (S rueppellii and S loewi) from all the others.

Identifying S rueppellii from Photos

This is quite a distinctive species with an incomplete scutum stripe. The abdomen of both sexes is unusually bulbous - constricted near the front. The abdomen markings, especially in the female, are quite curved. Curved bars from the side of the abdomen meet or nearly meet in the middle, but on T2 the spots are usually well separated and blunt-tipped. The antennae are pale but may sometimes be darkened above - they are never truly black though. This species is widespread but only crops up on iNat occasionally.

Identifying S loewi from Photos

A very distinctive species - the only one with jet black antennae. The abdomen is very dark, with a unique pattern of oblique spots becoming less well separated toward the tip. The male abdomen tapers toward a constriction at the front. The female abdomen seems to be even more constricted, and T5-7 are clearly visible. The species is associated with reedbeds, especially those containing club-rushes, and most often coastal ones. It is extremely rare - there are two on iNat (females from Poland and France), the images of both sexes from Steven Falk are excellent

Identifying S scripta from Photos

Males are quite easily identifiable because the abdomen is remarkably long compared to the wings. When the wings are folded almost the whole of T5 is beyond the wing tips. In other species the wings almost entirely cover the abdomen. It is of course harder to judge this when the wings are open, and you have to be very careful to take into account the angle at which the photo is taken, and whether the abdomen is being held straight or bent down in order to judge whether the abdomen is long.

HRS will generally not accept a female S scripta ID from photos. But it is useful to add the 'cf S scripta' value in the 'Sphaerophoria Identifiable Group' observation field so that it is possible to separate out the many probable scriptas from the more unusual species. The females of S scripta are also a little longer than other species owing partly to a longer T5 - the effect is much more subtle. The images below show a female that is probably S scripta compared to one that is definitely not S scripta.

Only one feature is generally regarded as diagnostic for S. scripta females: there is a broad glabrous line on the underside of the hind femora (that is to say a smooth shiny line without black bristles). In other species this line is narrow, but in scripta it is almost as wide as the femur itself. This is extremely difficult to capture in a photograph. I have tried! The best way in the field is to get the fly in a spi-pot. Otherwise obviously a microscope does the trick!

So when should we make it Research Grade at genus?

When the lateral scutum stripe is complete AND EITHER
a) it is male with a short abdomen OR
b) it is female without an exceptional view of the underside of the hind femur showing the tiny black bristles and the glabrous strip between them.

The remaining sections are only relevant for using the 'Sphaerophoria identifiable group' observation field.
What is "cleoae" pattern?

The species "Sphaerophoria cleoae" was described by Metcalfe in 1917 from North American females, however it was later found to represent genetic abnormalities that can occur in the females of several species - including European species. (Some other elongate genera show analogous phenomena). Such females may lack ovaries/spermathecae - in terms of appearence the tergites and sternites toward the end of the abdomen are fused together into a ring shape, and therefore the abdomens are less pointy and more male-looking (so do check the head to determine male sex!). They are usually darker and the particular abdomen pattern is distinctive - with the bands broken (or weakened) in the lateral third.

interrupta-group

The rest of the species with a complete scutum stripe fall into two general categories - those with banded abdomens and those with spotted abdomens. Care must be taken however because dark individuals of banded species may look spotted and vice versa. The interrupta-group is for the usually distinctly spotted species, primarily interrupta and fatarum. (See examples - Some other species are sometimes described as 'usually spotted' but many images and diagrams contradict this - including Falk's - philanthus is the closest to being spotted, and often is so). In these two species the markings are usually very clearly separated, and the females have a very distinctive sort of pattern - I'm not sure about fatarum but interrupta also has a distinct black face stripe. Females are probably easier to determine because their spots are quite well formed with a distinctive shape. Using this will enable people to filter for spotted specimens (it doesn't matter enormously if we accidentally catch some dark normally-banded species.)

So how can we use the 'Sphaerophoria identifiable group' observation field?

The main value of this field is to separate the more unusual species from the things that are probably S scripta and make them searchable. This way they don't just get lost in 'Genus Sphaerophoria' RG observations. If S. loewi and rueppellii can be excluded then I suggest using 'cf S scripta' for the females that match the indications of scripta given above, using interrupta-group for those that seem clearly to be spotted species, and 'cleoae pattern' as described above; and then using 'Complete scutum stripe' as the fallback for things that don't fall clearly into those three.

Anything else to be aware of in Europe?

Since some of you do identifying in continental Europe too it is worth mentioning that there are two other species in the 'Partial lateral scutum stripe' group - and both are identifiable from photos, S shirchan is distinguished by the distinct black face stripe, and S estebani lives in the mountains of central Europe and is distinguished by not having the distinguishing features of the others! (i.e. antennae not jet black (cf loewi), not with a face stripe (cf shirchan), and not having a constricted abdomen (cf rueppellii) - according to van Veen it has elongate, straight, lemon-yellow bands of constant width which are sometimes interrupted in the middle, on shiny black tergites. There is also one species with no scutum stripe at all - Sphaerophoria nigra, which is endemic to the Azores - completely black apart from the bright yellow scutellum, and parts of the legs in females, so rather distinctive!

Posted on 2023년 09월 22일, 22시 25분 29초 UTC by matthewvosper matthewvosper | 댓글 0 개 | 댓글 달기

2023년 09월 08일 (금)

Identifying Syrphus in the UK from photos

Observations of Syrphus build up very quickly on iNat - they are common and usually cannot be identified to species. It is also a genus where it is helpful to ID males and females separately because there are different things to look for - so it's particularly helpful to add the sex to these. I made a key to the European species a while ago and I won't repeat too much of the information there. Everywhere in Europe the main species are S ribesii, vitripennis and torvus, other species are always rare. The aim here is to focus on these three species to help us identify them, and know when an observation should be made Research Grade at Genus level. S nitidifrons has also been recorded in the UK, but you won't confuse it with these three - I'm just ignoring it here, the statements below may not apply to S nitidifrons.

Syrphus usually have:
--a golden dusty coloured scutum (but sometimes can be greyer or shinier)
--Front margin of abdominal bands quite straight and horizontal
--Hind margin of abdominal bands pinched forwards at the sides (and usually in the middle)
--Male frons mostly yellow but with a black mark above the lunule in the middle
--Female frons the same but the black mark is extended in a triangle with its apex close to the black part of the vertex.
--Scutellum is distinctly yellow
--T4 and T5 have narrow yellow hind margins, but T5 itself is not distinctly yellow.
--The face is entirely yellow, without a stripe.
--Dark antennae (not necessarily completely black though)

Distinguishing Syrphus from Parasyrphus

Parasyrphus is the genus most easily confused with Syrphus. Their scutum is usually darker (typically dusted a golden colour in Syrphus), Syrphus usually have a bushier fringe of yellow hair around the scutum too. The legs of Parasyrphus -especially the hind legs - are generally much blacker and the body is typically more slender. The face of Parasyrphus usually has a vertical black stripe down the middle and the frons is typically much darker. Familiarise yourself with the pictures of Parasyrphuson Steven Falk's Flickr page to see these features.

Distinguishing Syrphus from banded Eupeodes

The bands on banded species of Eupeodes are wavier than Syrphus (especially the front edge - having either a 'moustache' appearance or a 'sunglasses' appearance. The scutum is dark and shiny in Eupeodes (typically dusted a golden colour in Syrphus), and the fringe of hairs around the sides of the abdomen (except T2) is black rather than yellow.

Distinguishing Syrphus from banded Epistrophe

Epistrophe also usually have a face stripe and a dark shiny scutum. The bands on most banded Epistrophe are particularly straight - they may have a dink in the middle of the hind margin, but they meet the edge of the abdomen almost at full width. Several species have distinctly orange antennae and the frons is usually different. The most Syrphus-like species is E grossulariae, where the female also has a dark triangle on the fron - but the antennae are deep black and the frons triangle reaches all the way to the antennae - not just the top of the lunule as in Syrphus.

Identifying UK Syrphus species

A general scheme for identifying UK Syrphus looks like this:

Trait S ribesii S vitripennis S torvus
Hairy eyes? No No Yes
Female hind femur All yellow mostly black from the base mostly black from the base

(Coverage of microtrichia on the 2nd basal cell of the wing (incomplete in vitripennis, complete in the others) and the colour of bristles/hairs on the knees (yellow hairs in vitripennis, black bristles in the others) can also be used for ID but are basically never visible in photos).

This seems fairly simple but it's worth giving a few more pointers:

Identifying Syrphus ribesii in photos

Male S ribesii are not identifiable from normal photographs, because they cannot be distinguished reliably from S vitripennis. However typically S ribesii males have the hind femur 1/3 - 1/2 yellow, whereas S vitripennis have it only 1/5-1/4 yellow. If the hind femur is very yellow, you may rarely find some people (especially from overseas) identifying the species on that basis. HRS will not accept the record at species, but personally I am not inclined to disagree on iNat where this happens. Leave it be - the recording scheme can decide what they want to accept.

For female S. ribesii you need to be confident that you can see at least half of the hind femur to be sure it doesn't go black. Beware: the abdomen is fringed with yellow hairs, so if you are looking down from above through these hairs, they can obscure the colour change making you think that the femur remains yellow for longer than it does. Colour can also be hard to judge through the wing if there is glare.

Identifying Syrphus torvus in photos

The key thing to realise about S torvus is that the eye hairs are much more obvious in males than females. In males you can often see the eye hairs as a 'halo' around the eye, even in pictures that are not especially sharp. Females are a different ball game - it takes a very clear picture to be sure that there are hairs - they are both shorter and sparser than the males' eye hairs.

S torvus, especially females, also tend to have a bit of a different 'jizz' to the others - typically a bit darker than other Syrphus with narrower bands and a darker wing stigma. That alone is not a basis for an ID though.

Identifying Syrphus vitripennis in photos

For male S vitripennis see comments on male S ribesii above. Some people will ID this species if the hind femur is only very narrowly yellow.

Identifying female S vitripennis is also extremely difficult because you have to be sure that eye hairs are absent. Given how hard these are to see on a female torvus, it is even harder to prove the negative! Personally, I would only normally ID a female S vitripennis if the eyes are visible sufficiently clearly to see the ommatidia over a significant area of the eye.

So when is it safe to make an observation research grade at genus?

It should be safe to make an observation research grade at genus if microscopic features of the knee hairs/bristles or the wing microtrichia are not visible and

1) It's a male and hairs are not visible on the eyes

2) It's a female, no hairs are visible on the eyes but it's not an exceptionally clear picture of the eyes, and either the hind femur is only visible for less than the apical half or the hind femur is partly black.

If you're not sure of your judgement, there is never any harm in leaving it to someone else!

Posted on 2023년 09월 08일, 12시 30분 28초 UTC by matthewvosper matthewvosper | 댓글 0 개 | 댓글 달기

2023년 09월 05일 (화)

Making observations 'Research Grade' when the species can't be ID'd

Sphaerophoria, Syrphus and Eupeodes are three genera that dominate the 'Needs ID' pile in the UK. It is no surprise why: they are commonly observed, and it is frequently impossible to identify the species from photos. The UK Hoverfly Recording Scheme accepts records at the genus level, but these iNat observations will not reach them unless they are made 'Research Grade'. Observations become 'Research Grade' automatically if the ID is confirmed at species level, but at higher levels someone needs to click the box in the DQA section of an observation that reads: "Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved? No, it's as good as it can be"

Here are a few pointers on using this box:

1) Before making something research grade, check that the annotations have been added.

2) Make sure that the Community taxon is at Genus. (Not just your own ID)

This needs to be fleshed out. The 'Community Taxon' is the one that has the support of the community (i.e. more than 2/3 of at least 2 identifications in agreement). The ID shown on the page is often the leading ID, not the Community ID. For example:

You find an observation with just one ID 'Family Syrphidae', you add the ID 'Genus Syrphus'. Do not click 'No, it's as good as it can be' at this point. The Community ID is still 'Family Syrphidae', because that is what two IDs agree on. If you click at this point it will become a casual observation at Family, rather than a research grade observation at Genus. You need to wait until someone has agreed with your Genus ID.

You can check what the community taxon is on the right hand side on the observation page on the website:

More information about how the Community Taxon works can be found here

3) Only use it if you are confident that the observation cannot be ID'd further (not just that you can't ID it further).

This will be the case only if the necessary ID features are not visible, or the photo is very obscure (too blurred). Of course there is an element of judgement involved, but we can try to be as objective as possible.

I'm aiming to add some specific resources to help with the three genera, Sphaerophoria, Syrphus and Eupeodes sooner or later, but I did make a guide to European Syrphus a while ago where you can get plenty of information already.

Posted on 2023년 09월 05일, 12시 02분 24초 UTC by matthewvosper matthewvosper | 댓글 3 개 | 댓글 달기

2023년 09월 02일 (토)

State of the Syrphs - 1-Sep-2023

Hello all,

August was a wet month, but still plenty of Syrphid observations have poured in. The NeedsID pile is taking it's final end-of-season shape, which I'll come onto in a moment.

Updates

The only update to the project content is that I have edited the sexing hoverflies article and associated URLs to include the Subtribe Spheginina as exceptions to the general rule, which I had missed. If you are new to the project, do check out all the content via the index.

Annotations

The proportion of observations annotated in August has dipped a bit from July but remains well ahead of where we were before that. Adding annotations to observations is a great way to get started contributing to iNat and the UK recording scheme. Read the annotations and sexing hoverflies articles if you think you might like to chip in!

Identifications

The pile needing ID has increased in August as should be expected. The only genera to decrease are Episyrphus, Leucozona, Merodon, Rhingia, Volucella and Heringia. The number of observations stuck at higher levels has also decreased which I think is quite remarkable - if you've been involved in that then well done! Perhaps as a result of that a few genera have swelled significantly - most notably Syrphus and Sphaerophoria which are up 10% and 19% respectively in just one month despite being some of the largest to start with!

That's all for now. Enjoy September - next week might be good for late-season hoverating!

(all data compiled on 1-Sep-23)

Posted on 2023년 09월 02일, 17시 26분 35초 UTC by matthewvosper matthewvosper | 댓글 0 개 | 댓글 달기

2023년 08월 01일 (화)

State of the Syrphs - 1-Aug-2023

Hello all!

It's been about a month since we started trying to harness this project to help us improve our own and others' observations for the benefit of the HRS, so I thought I'd give an update and a bit of a 'lie of the land' analysis of the UK Syrphidae on iNat. We've now got 47 people on board, so thanks to you all: whatever your level of interest/contribution may be I hope you've found something of interest and of use.

Everything is new this month of course, so as far as the project's content is concerned everything is an 'update'. If you haven't checked out the index, then please do!

I collected some stats a couple of weeks ago and again yesterday so...

Annotations

A lot of the content posted in the project so far has focussed on adding annotations. This is a great way to contribute if you don't fancy doing many identifications yet. Some of you have taken this by storm, so thanks!

From 2022 about 13% of observations have a life stage annotation, and 20% have a sex annotation, oddly in the early part of this year it was almost the other way round. But for the July just gone that has already increased to over 80% for life stage and 70% for sex - bravo! If anyone else fancies chipping in with a few minutes here and there I'm sure we can get both numbers higher still, and create more slack for each other :)

(I should add that this does not mean that Roger and the team at HRS will see quite that proportion of annotations, because a proportion of these annotations will have been added after the observation became Research Grade. But even so, it must be making quite some difference!).

Harder-to-quantify-things

A few of you have gotten in touch to say you've switched to pinned coordinates instead of using obscured coordinates; that's awesome, it will make your observations useable for the HRS. If you've no idea what that's about - and for other information about how to optimise your observations for the recording scheme to use, see here - this is the most important post in the project :)

The 'NeedsID' Pile

The summer is peak time for observations, and many identifiers are focussed on observing rather than identifying, so it is no surprise that the number of UK hoverflies needing ID has gone up in the last couple of weeks to just over 16000. Almost all genera have gone up, but someone's done a job-lot of Merodon and cut it by a quarter - well done if that's you!

If you've not felt comfortable identifying before why not keep tabs on just a smaller group of easier flies that you are confident with? Perhaps tick off a few Episyrphus as they come in? Or can you tell Myathropa from Eristalis? Or Syritta pipiens? Keeping on top of these common species frees other people up for the harder things.

Otherwise, here's a deeper dive to reveal the 'shape' of the 'NeedsID' pile - some food for strategic thought, in the form of pie:

As you can see the 'NeedsID' Pile is dominated by the subfamily Syrphinae. The three tribes of Syrphinae, (Syrphini + Bacchini + Melanostomini) are three of the four neediest tribes, and a good 2/3 of the total. (The second neediest tribe is Eristalini, which is dominated (75%) by Eristalis)

Taking a closer look at Syrphini...

If 'Syrphini Pie' sounds appetising to you, perhaps you'd like to take a large mouthful of Eupeodes this year... This one genus accounts for more than a third of Syrphini, and more than 1 in 7 of all UK hoverflies needing ID. No other tribe has that many! (It is 1 in 10 of the European hoverfly pile too)

There's no secret as to why this is - they're commonly observed and hard to ID; but if you know your latifasciatus from your luniger and your corollae... and if you can pick them out from the mishmash of obscurities... then you can probably pick off quite a lot!

Plenty of other genera deserve an honourable mention though: Eristalis (1660), Syrphus (1308), Platycheirus (1298), Melanostoma (934), Sphaerophoria (854), and Cheilosia (608) all have more than 500. Alternatively, perhaps you might prefer to help some of those 995 Syrphini 'Stuck at Tribe' by putting them into the right genus. Or whatever you fancy, of course!

Whatever you do, and whenever you do it: Happy Syrphing!

Posted on 2023년 08월 01일, 21시 49분 37초 UTC by matthewvosper matthewvosper | 댓글 0 개 | 댓글 달기

2023년 07월 05일 (수)

Useful 'Identify' URLs and some thoughts on adding annotations

The identify portal on the iNaturalist website is by far the quickest way to add identifications and annotations to a large number of observations.

One thing that the Hoverfly Recording Scheme - and other schemes - would like to see more of is observations being well annotated. The annotations they receive are sex and life stage. Only 1 in 5 UK hoverfly observations from 2022 have a sex annotation, and only 1 in 8 have a life stage annotation.

(See here for how to add annotations to your own observations when uploading.)

Adding annotations to others' observations is actually pretty quick - and it's a great thing to do especially if you're not yet confident to do a lot of species identifications. Last July an average of 120 UK hoverflies per day were uploaded to iNat (presumably more at the weekend and fewer in the week). I timed myself adding 120 life stage annotations for Saturday - just over 4 minutes. Sex takes a bit longer because you have to look harder - I went through 120 in six and a half minutes but only added the annotation to 80% of them, the others I was unsure of for whatever reason. (Note: your annotation will appear with a 'spinning circle' at first - you do not need to wait for the circle to stop spinning before moving on to the next observation).

The way to add annotations quickly is explained in the article about sexing hoverflies. There is also a tutorial on the iNaturalist Forum.

It seems that new Research Grade observations from iNaturalist are sent to the recording scheme often within minutes of becoming Research Grade. It is important to note that once an observation has been sent to HRS, no changes we make to it on iNat will be passed on; for that reason adding annotations to old Research Grade records does not help the recording scheme (it only has value within iNaturalist so I'm not saying it's completely pointless to do, but maybe less of a priority).

The speed with which Research Grade observations are passed on means that it's a good idea to add annotations before adding IDs if you intend to do both. The quickest way to do everything is to add annotations and IDs separately (saves a lot of clicking between tabs on each observation). What I mean is adding annotations for a while then doing IDs, rather than doing everything to one observation at a time. What I have done before is for each page of 30 observations on the identify portal, do all the annotations and then all the IDs before moving on to the next page.

The following links will hopefully prove useful, and more explanation of them is given below:

All UK Hoverflies Needing ID: What it says on the tin.
All UK Hoverflies Needing ID from the last two days: Also what it says on the tin!
All UK Hoverflies not yet identified to Genus: This is great if you are not confident at identifying particular species but want to help by getting things into the right genus.

All UK Hoverflies needing sex annotation (non-RG): Research grade is excluded because old RG observations will already have been sent to HRS
All UK Hoverflies needing sex annotation from the last two days: RG is included here because they may not have been sent through yet.
All UK Hoverflies needing sex annotation excluding difficult groups: This link only returns observations that have already been identified at least as far as genus. The groups excluded are those in which the males' eyes are separated: Subfamily Microdontinae, Subtribes Helophilina and Spheginina, Genera Lejogaster and Eristalinus (because of E sepulchrinus), and also the rare species Eristalis abusiva.

All UK Hoverflies needing life stage annotation (non-RG): Research grade is excluded because old RG observations will already have been sent to HRS
All UK Hoverflies needing life stage annotation from the last two days: RG is included here because they may not have been sent through yet.

Posted on 2023년 07월 05일, 08시 02분 18초 UTC by matthewvosper matthewvosper | 댓글 1 개 | 댓글 달기

기록 보관소