Tiny beetle found in the garden
No interactions present.
Hi Syrphus thanks for the link, very helpful! Although I am slightly confused.. Should a member not then post a photograph or for that matter give a suggested ID under the heading 'It might be this?' unless the specimen is scientifically mounted and 100 percent identifiable?? Perhaps a helpful comment rather than a scathing ID review would be more appreciated and contructive. Anyway thanks for the link, that kind of help is definately appreciated!
P.s. I bet you a pint that my Zebra spider you recently reviewed IS Salticus scenicus. You are welcome to bring your microscope!
I think you are being very unfair, Richard. I don't think anything I wrote in the revision could be seen as 'scathing', and it was certainly not intended to be that.
The standards that different contributors apply do vary, but my attitude is that one should go for the most precise ID that the evidence allows. If that is the Class or Order, then that is what it should be. Not everything can be identified in even a good picture to species, or in many cases even to genus or family.
An 'it might be this' ID in my view is fine for starters. In my opinion there is not nearly enough information in the picture to justify a specific ID, and in the genus you suggested there is no way that P. pomaceus could be a likely ID without much more detail.
Precisely the same applies to your Salticus. It *might* be scenicus, but it might also be one of 3 other species, and especially the common S. cingulatus. You can't just suggest that what you find is the commonest one in the area. You will note that three others have agreed with me.
The fact is that many invertebrates, fungi and plants *cannot* be identified precisely without technical examination, and there are many examples in iSpot of IDs which have started as species and been revised by experienced specialists to something very much more vague (check out all the Panorpa posts as an example). That in itself ought to be seen as helpful in acquiring better awareness of wildlife, and more accurate ID skills. Which is what iSpot is all about.
recording wildlife with The Recorder's Year on www.hbrg.org.uk/TRY.html.
Hi, thanks for the prompt reply and explanation. I fully appreciate your point, not all members are experts, many far from it and for me my personally my enthusiasm sometimes gets ahead of my current knowledge. But I still feel a friendly more helpful approach by the 'experts' would be more educationally beneficial. I think that many members will also automatically 'agree' with the 'expert' with the highest reputation to further their own status. That said, this is a great site and a superb wildlife resource and I look forward to everyones observations and ID's and hope you can forgive us less knowledgeable members our occasional over enthusiasm. Regards and thanks - Richard-
Many thanks to everyone for your comments and suggestions. I am sorry the photo wasn't the best angle or quality to help you. Having enlarged my original photo and compared it to images of Sitona species on the web, it seems to me this is very likely what the beetle was. Indeed, although I realize it is impossible to go down to species level with a photo such as this, having enlarged my original photo and compared it closely to various Sitona species, there appears to be a very close match to Sitona ononidis.
Lat/Lng: 51.3, 1.1
OS grid ref: TR2068