[TN-Butterflies] submission of butterfly data: bamona vs. bis
- From: "Steve Stedman" <birdsongteam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <tn-butterflies@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 13:43:32 -0500
As most of you know, the Butterflies and Moths of North America (BAMONA)
website presents information about the distribution of lepidoptera that is
probably more accurate and more current than are the distributional data
available at any other online or published butterfly (or moth) source. BAMONA
provides distributional data down to the county (for US) and state (for Mexico)
level about each of the species covered by the website (and the list of species
gets longer each year, mainly as more and more moth species are added to the
database). Efforts to include BAMONA coverage of the Canadian provinces are
also proceeding. If you were to look for a website that provided
distributional information of comparable completeness and accuracy for any
other large group of related taxa in North America, you would probably look in
vain. Certainly no such website is available for the birds of North America.
The only competitor might be the website for North American dragonflies and
damselflies--which as a group is far smaller than the group of butterflies and
moths.
BAMONA is in the process of increasing its coverage of the continental lep
fauna from a mainly distribution-related focus to one that encompasses
distribution, abundance, and trend analysis, as well as even more life history
related issues on down the road. To this end, sources of abundance data are
being sought that offer a fairly high degree of accuracy, to complement the
fairly high degree of accuracy that BAMONA distribution data have had and
continue to have based on its two-tiered system of review (i.e., all BAMONA
records pass through a state reviewer and then pass through a continental
reviewer before they are entered into the database).
A seemingly logical place for BAMONA personnel to look for abundance data about
butterflies is within the archives of the Butterflies I've Seen (BIS) database
maintained by the North American Butterfly Association (NABA). I am not sure
how long NABA has had BIS in operation, but probably at least a decade, so
there are many data housed there. The problem with the BIS program is that the
data entered into it have never been the subject of any kind of review, so
there may be considerable inconsistency in the quality of the archived data.
In order for BIS data to become useful to BAMONA, a thorough vetting of all the
data would need to be accomplished. This is a large but seemingly doable task,
presuming that both sides are willing to make it happen. The question then
becomes finding out if both sides are indeed willing to make that effort and,
if they are, getting a process in place to vet the data. I will see what I can
learn about prospects for mutual cooperation on this issue from both
organizations, whose politics are not entirely known to me--but what little I
do know does not lead me to believe that such a vetting could be put in place
quickly (pehaps not for several years).
In the meantime, we can wait for BAMONA and BIS to become reconciled to one
another data-wise or we can begin to supply BAMONA with the data it needs to
begin its transformation from a website focused on distribution to a website
focused on distribution, abundance, and trend analysis (and much more). Given
this choice, I say let's start supplying BAMONA with the kind of properly
vetted data it wants and hope that NABA and its BIS data can be brought into
the equation as soon as possible.
Besides its BIS data, NABA has also become responsible for the Fourth of July
butterfly counts across the continent. Here is a source of butterfly abundance
data that HAVE been vetted already. Data from each NABA butterfly count go
through the hands of a compiler; then the data receive a regional review--with
our own Bill Haley from Chattanooga serving in this capacity for all the counts
from Tennessee (and Kentucky and West Virginia) and with Rita Venable, one of
Tennessee's most respected field butterfliers, sometimes assisting Bill in his
reviewing efforts; and then the data go through a continental review before
being published. The problem with getting the NABA butterfly count data to
BAMONA is that NABA itself has butterfly experts who are analyzing the
butterfly count data for what light they can shed on changes in distribution
and trends in butterfly populations. Given its investment in the butterfly
counts, NABA might have qualms about sharing the butterfly count data with
BAMONA. Or it might not; I just do not know.
Let me say that I have been encouraging Tennessee butterfliers to use the
NABA-supported BIS butterfly archive for several years, and I will continue to
do that. But, given that I have not seen much result from the BIS program in
the way of expanded knowledge about, or information access to, butterflies
during the past five years, I view BIS as mainly being a way to safeguard one's
personal butterfly data. Given what I have seen BAMONA do on a daily basis
with the butterfly data going to it in the way of expanded distributional
knowledge of butterflies and moths, I am inclined to want to share all my more
meaningful butterfly counts with them as well.
How we archive and share our butterfly data (i.e., with BIS and BAMONA) is not
an either/or issue; both ways of perpetuating our butterfly data have value,
and I encourage all Tennessee butterfliers to submit to each of these worthy
programs.
Steve Stedman
Cookeville (Putnam County)
Other related posts:
- » [TN-Butterflies] submission of butterfly data: bamona vs. bis - Steve Stedman
