miked's picture

Miked - cuttlefish - 11 June 2005 - 12:25pm

Observed: 11th June 2005 By: miked
iSpot team
miked’s reputation in Invertebratesmiked’s reputation in Invertebratesmiked’s reputation in Invertebratesmiked’s reputation in Invertebrates
cuttlefish bones brighton 9746
Description:

cuttlefish bones

Identifications
Species interactions

No interactions present.

Comments

Jonathan's picture

These belong to squid - so

These belong to squid - so why not tag them 'Mollusca'?

Jonathan
University of Edinburgh and Biodiversity Observatory (OU)

miked's picture

does that mean the snail

does that mean the snail person will then confirm them?

Jonathan's picture

Well, they are not fish, that

Well, they are not fish, that is for sure! Nor are these bones, either!

Jonathan
University of Edinburgh and Biodiversity Observatory (OU)

Martin Harvey's picture

marine

I'm still in favour of having a separate marine forum for this sort of thing, although I guess we could use the "unknown" category as an alternative.

There are marine mollusc experts out there (e.g. marine mollusca are dealt with by a separate recording scheme to non-marine), so no reason why they shouldn't get involved with the mollusc forum.

Martin

----
Entomologist and biological recorder

Jonathan's picture

I agree with you completely.

I agree with you. Let's have a "marine and seashore" group. This might produce a format problem for the icons though. There is only room for 8. The simple solution would be just to rename the fish icon.

BUT, on second thoughts this would be the only group defined by habitat rather than by taxon.

Jonathan
University of Edinburgh and Biodiversity Observatory (OU)

Martin Harvey's picture

pragmatism

Jonathan said:
> BUT, on second thoughts this would be the only group defined by habitat rather than by taxon.

True, but we could take the pragmatic view that the marine habitat warrants special treatment. After all, we have pragmatically lumped all inverterbates together whereas the few mammals get their own forum. There isn't a perfect solution to this.

Martin

----
Entomologist and biological recorder

architect's picture

Comment test

Hi Mike, I'm just testing to see if this comment shows up in your 'My Unread' page

trudy-russell's picture

renaming the fish icon would

renaming the fish icon would leave no where for the freshwater fish, but its good we are looking at a marine category!

Trudy Russell
Marine Advisor
Natural England

To find out about what's going on in the south west check out http://www.ispot.org.uk/forum/8409

ChrisMcA's picture

Tags

Couldn't tags be used?

Martin Harvey's picture

marine

I should probably point out that most of the above conversation dates from 2008 when iSpot was first being developed, but we have continued to discuss how best to deal with the marine category since then. Tags could work, but it's always difficult to ensure they are being used consistently. We hope to find a way of allowing iSpot users to filter the marine observations onto a search page, but it will be a while yet before that becomes possible. Watch this space!

----
Entomologist and biological recorder

ChrisMcA's picture

This really needs Miked to

This really needs Miked to edit the group to invertebrates, & is definitely sepia officinalis

dejayM's picture

"..dealing with the marine category..."

This very old post has in it some historical and useful comment regarding Groups.
ð

Tony Rebelo's picture

But is surely all sorted out

So we have habitats = Marine (UK) and Marine Benthic, Marine Pelagic, Marine Canyon, Coral Reef and Littoral (sAfr).
And we have taxonomy links or Groups

So a filter (under explore community) or a project with filter set to:
Habitat = Marine (UK)
&
Taxonomy = Molluscs (UKSI)
(remember to set Likely ID to ONLY otherwise you will get duplicates and triplicates - an unfixed bug)

and that will sort this out.

Similarly with Freshwater vs marine fish
Habitat = Aquatic (sAfr) versus = Marine Benthic, Marine Pelagic, Marine Canyon, Coral Reef and Littoral (sAfr).
&
Taxonomy = Gnathostomata (SANBI)

Regarding FORUMS - we have a Marine Forum in s Afr:
http://www.ispotnature.org/forum/32416
But it is so hidden in the new Forums layout that it has never been used.

dejayM's picture

Me again

This needs re-addressing -
This is a Marine Invertabrate not a Coastal one
It is a difficult issue because we are asked, eroneously I believe, to place this in the Habitat found. So a stormed-in shark in the garden or a bird-dropped herring in the street would not get properly attributed - You'll know what I mean!
I would always recommend that marine organisms be placed in Marine, or AT LEAST with the addition of the Descriptive tag Marine. Many of us watch here http://www.ispotnature.org/taxonomy/term/376 and not here http://www.ispotnature.org/taxonomy/term/41 which has birds, trees, butterflies - everything but Marine Organisms!

miked's picture

Have change it to marine

Have change it to marine habitat although possibly leaving it in coastal and adding the marine tag might be best. One issue is that many people finding something like this may not know what it is e.g. is it a bit of wood and so should be from woodland?

Tony Rebelo's picture

Not acceptable.

it is not acceptable for anyone to infer habitat for something found in an "inappropriate habitat".

The fact remains that this is not a squid. It is the "remains" of one found on the beach. The correct habitat is thus beach!

Just like if a huge Yellowwood washes down the Storms River (Western Cape, South Africa) and washes out to sea and lands up on a beach in Brighton, the correct habitat is "Beach" - that is where it was found in both location and habitat. To infer that it belongs to Afromontane Forest as a habitat and that it came from South Africa (even though it is naturally endemic to the south coast of the country) is unacceptable. And if it was found drifting in the Sargasso Sea, then its habitat is Marine Pelagic and the locality is Sargasso Sea: where it came from or how it got there, and trying to infer its origin, route and destination, are utterly irrelevant.
The fact that you cannot catch it in a project, or that it interferes with your statistics on where this species occurs (naturally) is also irrelevant.

I strongly disagree with the change in habitat. But I respect that in the UK you may do things differently: but if so, it is not good science.

dejayM's picture

Strongly agree

I can't disagree with that. I am NOT using the Marine designation to collect posts, I am trying to get Marine organisms, particularly Invertebrates, more support - the Marine Habitat Tag helps that process here in iSpotUK.
I am concerned mainly with marine invertebrate, marine fish and marine algae which belong in a Marine habitat - having one or other (or its flesh) on a plate would not make it an Urban Garden organism.
In 'difficult' circumstances I would like to see the Descriptive tag Marine used - http://www.ispotnature.org/taxonomy/term/337 very few people use it, even though I have been promoting it for a while.
The "This is not a squid" philosophy might ruin many a good post of mollusc shells, marine or otherwise. I do not think it a valid part of this argument.
However, taking a leaf from 'your' book (Tony), Littoral covers most things like it in ZA But I don't think we need sudivisions of the Marine Environment here in the UK - there are only four or so Marine posts a month and almost all are Coastal
The real irony here is that this post will get no more 'coverage'. As the 241st Observation it is lost in History.
So - I agree with Tony.

Tony Rebelo's picture

I dont know.

iSpot told me about this.
Anyone interested in Cuttlefish is likely to find this.

And maybe the new forums will allow this type of discussion to be more easily visible. I hope so ...