No interactions present.
Adding subspecies to common birds is an issue which appears occasionally on iSpot. There is no point adding a subspecies for a species like Magpie, to be honest. It is impossible for you to know that this is not a different ssp, like fennorum or galliae. We are told that our subspecies is pica, so you are doubtless correct, but it cannot actually be proved from a photo, so there is no point in adding it. You would need to look through a series of museum skins to realise where the differeneces lie, they are so tiny.
My Flickr photos...
Magpie I understand is also one in which there is clinal variation - that is to say a variety of stages between each of the named subspecies. So it is even harder to safely ID one to subspecies level.
That said I do think, where there are observable subspecific ID features (for instance in Pied / White Wagtail) then adding the sub-species where the photo shows the relevant features is quite in keeping with the spirit of iSpot.
During the summer I added a number of Harlequin ladybirds to ispot. Someone, who knows more about them than I do added which subspecies they were. I found this to be helpful and interesting.
Harlequins don't have subspecies...
Record your ladybird sightings!
http://www.ispot.org.uk/node/191570?nav=users_observations Have a look. That's one example. I think there are a few more but I'm on my Blackberry so its a bit hard to find them.
Point taken, but it was fun researching the different ssp., to see where they are generally recorded.
A lichen ménage à trois - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6297/337
Some say it's time to throw the textbook understanding of lichens out the window.
"Now there will be more chaos, more confusion in lichenology ,...."
I agree about ssp where there is an obvious, visible difference, and have said the same when this has been discussed before.
Lat/Lng: 52.5952, -1.1695
OS grid ref: SK563000