Showing change to summer plumage
No interactions present.
The matter of nomenclature has been dealt with recently, and the advice is to mention the new genus in a comment, not in a revised ID. See Martin's comment at http://www.ispot.org.uk/node/245251.
To repeat, Larus is not in any sense wrong.
recording wildlife with The Recorder's Year on www.hbrg.org.uk/TRY.html.
..it is also the generic name "recommended" on this site
Whilst I acknowledge Martins Comment , my view . for what its worth, is that is important that the Current Genus is used or at least mentioned as it discourages the accepted or perceived use of the outdated Synonym,as I am sure you know with advances in technology there are more and more Classifications that are being put forward and revised contrary to popular belief Taxonomy is fluid
Since the site is used by OU students and fundemental to i-spot is the grouping of Taxa based on similar features based on a Systematic Approach ( Although I would acknowledge with advents in DNA these are becoming more obscure and hardly relevant in some caes to a rainy day :-)in a Bird Hide ). It would perhaps assist OU Students to underline the concept that it is best practice is to use only one Scientific Binomial which is Current (as you suggest)
I think Martin has pointed out the difficulties and limitations with keeping Taxa regularly updated and current on Databases and the like ,and there is much(much) sympathy here ,the Suggestion to use Larus ridibundus on the Drop Down as you say is not wrong , but it is not helpful Would it not be be better to maually enter Chroicocephalus ridibundus in the first instance ??? Surely the best place for the New Genus is not in comments but where it should be - in the Taxon Slot.
It is not uncommon for one taxonomist (or Governing Body) to disagree with another on what exactly belongs to a taxon, or on what exact criteria should be used for inclusion.
In terms of my observations I would be inclined to use the accepted current Chroicocephalus ridibundus - which can be enterred Manually and from what I can see (and could be wrong ) is linking with Larus ridibundus on the NBN Gateway Maps on i-spot in any case. Keeping to one ground rule should mean there are not 50 shades of the same - A Recorders Nightmare (If not for the reason that most recent biological recording software patches can correct for/to current revisions) . The ground rule I would have thought is use the Current Accepted taxonomy
In the end analyis it would appear Larus is an accepted Synonym which is outdated ,for how long , who knows , and it might even be revised to Larus again :-) No matter how we look at it , its still A Black-headed Gull :)
If what is being said is dont correct , the old nomeclature my own personal view is making the system limitations fit the nomeclature , and not the Nomeclature the sytem which is fundementally imporant to this area of work is not nesessarily right but as Martin suggests the best outcome until i-spot incorporates on-line updates . In any case I would always vaildate Chroicocephalus as being , in my view (and I could be wrong!! ) the most acceptible current taxonomy
Whats Happening ???
Supporting FEET Conservation & Biodiversity Recording
The fact is that the current dictionary managed by the Natural History Museum does not accept Chroicocephalus. Look at http://data.nbn.org.uk/gridMap/gridMap.jsp?allDs=1&srchSpKey=NBNSYS00000.... It has nothing to do with the iSpot version being out-of-date.
Genus limits are and always have been a matter of opinion only.
The practical point is that it is unfair in every sense to override the (correct) genus Larus given by the system to a beginner who will only type in the English name and then 'Get recommended', with an (equally but not more correct) genus that not even the NHM has yet introduced to its system.
Even once Chroicocephalus does get to the dictionary, Larus ridibundus will still be a perfectly valid and correct name if anyone wants to use it.
Thanks Murdo -
The fact is the Dictionary used is not Current for that Taxa given you accept the authority of the prescribing body(ies)
You do raise another interesting and valid aspect of Etiquette on i-spot Murdo - just a suggestion of course -
Correcting the Genus should not impose an Unfair limit on a New Contributor if the following etiquette is generally applied
Namely if a correction is made (or even a follow up Binomial to a Common Name ) which has been left open , then the person correcting often with many stars should lend full weght of their reputation by agreeing with the initial observation . On many occasions beginners have been penalised by more experienced users .
Because it is recommended doesnt mean it is current as we have established , the System in itself does not impose any unfair limits on a Newcomer ,it is in fact the "User" not chosing to acknowledge anothers observation If in fact the etiquette by users is followed then Current Taxonomy can be simply applied in the manner described above , with some encouragement to New Comers and at the same time providing Current Knowledge
Ref Authorities recognizing this taxonomic concept:
You have gone off the point. No-one is saying that C. ridibundus is wrong, and it matters not which authorities recognise it.
The point is that Larus is correct, and should not be treated as if it were somehow wrong.
The authority that provides the iSpot dictionary (Natural History Museum - hardly beginners in the field of taxonomy) have not added it yet to their taxonomy, and that is all that matters.
If you want to pursue this, it would be better to do so in a forum post.
During my many years working as a ranger on a complex internationally important site one of the first things I learned was was we can not make any progress in conservation without public support and that one of the hardest skills to master was winning people over and making them feel included and involved -especially in the face of vested interest who employ slick PR merchants.
In an earlier incarnation I remember persuading a brilliant botanists to show a group of trainees around the chalk grassland site they had been working on - sadly he alienated them all by using scientific names for the plants he was talking about rather than pitching his talk to his audience.
I am not egotistical enough to be bothered by some of the petty grandstanding that goes on on this site - if anything I find it mildly amusing - but it does concern me that it could put off those who are just beginning to develop an interest in nature and wildlife.
Lat/Lng: 50.7228, -1.9026
OS grid ref: SZ069914