No interactions present.
I think sub species always confuse and I assume you have gone for this on a geographical basis. The Sardinian sub species is I believe P. m. ecki. P. m. corsus is found on Corsica but are the 2 populations distinct from one another ? Other than that I have no experience of these sub-species.
Chris Brooks - www.dragonfly-images.co.uk
My Flickr site - www.flickr.com/photos/ceb1298
I´m also active on iSpot South africa were they are very keen with subspecies.
You are absolutly right, it was on geographic basis. I`ve got a book about sardinia wildlife and there it´s called N.p.corsus. Now i found on Wikipedia that it´s N.p.ecki since 1970. My book is much younger.
So I change it now to ecki even if i know it´s still P.m. and Corsica is not that far away.
Can this be identified to subspecies, with certainty, based on anything other than the geographic location? If not I would suggest that the highest confidence level it should be identified to would be "It's likely to be this but I can't be certain" (although I would see no problem with mentioning the likely subspecies as a note).
Personally I like the idea of identification to subspecies when it can be confirmed by features visible in the photos, or has been confirmed by other features at the time of the observation (in the later case the relevant features should probably be mentioned in the details if a subspecific identification is given).
I do not like subspecific identifications which are based solely on geographical area in which the individual was seen. In many cases subspecific identification can only be confirmed with measurements taken from birds in the hand, and assumptions based on distribution ignore the possibility of vagrancy or range expansion by subspecies from nearby regions.
You didn't have to add a new ID - but I am happier to agree with the new one!
Can I take it that on the South African Ispot subspecies ID is preferred even if it is only based on geographic location?
Lat/Lng: 40.84, 9.619