[tn-moths] Re: submitting data to bamona, the location problem
- From: Larry McDaniel <larrycmcd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: tn-moths <tn-moths@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 06:43:17 -0500
Steve,
I get Bold-based Zale here in Washington County in the spring. I will submit
more records to BAMONA when I get more replies from the ones I've already sent.
Larry McDaniel
Johnson City,TN
From: birdsongteam@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: tn-butterflies@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; tn-moths@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tn-moths] submitting data to bamona, the location problem
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:26:31 -0600
If you have tried to submit a photo-documented record of a butterfly or moth to
BAMONA, you already know that part of the submission process is to provide a
point on a map showing where you found the lepidopteran. The point that you
select can be quite precise, showing EXACTLY where you were. Since records
without map points MUST be rejected, you really have no option about providing
a map point with your submission, but sometimes giving the exact location is
not such a good idea.
For records that involve species of conservation concern, or rare species, or
for places where you do not want your location to be precisely shown, I
recommend (and Kelly Lotts at BAMONA also recommends) placing your map point in
a generalized manner, perhaps at the county seat of the county where you found
the moth or butterfly. You should indicate this fact in the window of the
data-entry page where you can include location notes by noting that "the
location provided is imprecise" or words to that effect so that folks don't
start looking for butterflies in the middle of a city that is a county seat.
If you submit several records from one site, with only one of the records
involving a species needing location protection, you should probably provide a
generalized location within the correct county for ALL the records, so that the
location and date of the common species will not lead to the location of the
rare species, by anyone persistent enough to track down a record in that manner.
In this regard the large yellow dots used in the new BAMONA maps for old
records without coordinates were better as a way to present locations than are
the small orange dots that indicate new records with coordinates. I wish that
the new system allowed one to choose one or the other of those two location
symbols rather than offering only the latter symbol.
Anyway, I caution you against being too precise in providing the locations of
rarish species that you submit as records.
Good lepping, Steve Stedman
Cookeville (Putnam County)
Side Note: I see that there are now 243 species of moths listed for TN at the
new BAMONA site, a long way from where we were a few years back, but a long way
from where we hope to end up. I also note that my record of Bold-based Zale in
Cumberland County remains the only record for the state; what's up with that?
Is it really that uncommon?
Other related posts:
