How to you record/archive your finds ? Is there any software for this ?

yorkshireTrev · #11 (**permalink**) 13-10-2009, 11:19 AM

Thanks for all your suggestions, i'll give them all a proper looking at later today.

Do you need to be a member of the ABFG before you can add to the CATE database?

The mycorec program looks really good, i've had a little play with it but im not sure if it runs how it should on access 2007 ill have to play around a little more with it.

I am indeed in 'Gods own country' Chris, i search a local wood which is about 140 acres and it amazes me how many different species of fungi i find there.

Ultimately i would like to log all my finds for the woodland and reproduce them into an interactive online map of the woodland with little markers that when you mouse over it displays what fungi can be found there and at what time of year. I would be more than happy to send you my finds for your records though Chris.

Thanks again everyone

Trev

ron1863 · #12 (**permalink**) 13-10-2009, 12:32 PM

You can do that with Photoshop Elements Trev. It includes online mapping, I use the satellite map where you can click on where you found fungi and it leaves a little red pin, hovering the mouse over the pin displays a thumnail photo.

yorkshireTrev · #13 (**permalink**) 13-10-2009, 12:43 PM

Ooo Thanks Ron ill have a gander at that now. Sounds perfect for what i intend to do.
Trev

PeteS · #14 (**permalink**) 13-10-2009, 02:07 PM

Thanks David and Chris. I am going to check these out too.

cybershot · #15 (**permalink**) 13-10-2009, 02:52 PM

A further advantage of the CATE system is it's Synonym Look-up facility which ensures records and mapping keep abreast of the various name changes which constantly plague us.

antenna · #16 (**permalink**) 13-10-2009, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

As I understand it CATE is not a data provider to the NBN - I'm not sure why; I would personally be wary of passing on information to a body which effectively sits on that information and only passes it out to the select few . . . .

Chris,

You're misleading people if you're implying that ABFG sits on data. Anyone with Internet access can use CATE to find plenty of information at 10km resolution. It's made available as soon as it's sent in by recorders. Already there are hundreds of records for October 2009. I don't call that sitting on data!!

If you're not sure why NBN hasn't yet taken CATE's records yet then you should ask NBN. It's not because ABFG wishes to withhold data! ABFG and NBN are working together to get the data feed set up. You may have your own reasons for implying that ABFG is secretive with its data. It patently isn't, as anyone who uses CATE may see.

Regards,
John

SheffieldLass · #17 (**permalink**) 14-10-2009, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

I am always happy to receive records of Yorkshire fungi (if YorkshireTrev is collecting in God's Own County

) - as county recorder I have a computer database of Yorkshire records going back to the 17th century (I suspect CATE has, understandably, a Year Zero approach) and am always happy to send out information on particular species, sites, etc. An Excel file would be fine, I could suggest a preferred format if required

cheers

Chris

Hi Chris

If I send Yorkshire records to you, do I get sent BMS record reference numbers for them?... Just wondering as I'll also be passing on the records to Sorby, and the issue of duplication may arise otherwise as I presume/hope they send their records on to the BMS.

Also, if I press the 'send records' button on Mycorec, I know it changes the data on the database, as it gives a warning message that it will do (which is the reason why I've not tried it yet

). What actually gets changed? Is it just a tick box to say that they have been submitted? Maybe I should do a test run on a duplicate copy of the software to see what happens as I wouldn't want 700+ records to get scrambled .... (Well I have tinkered with the software, so I could have inadvertently upset something in the process.)

cheers
Melanie

flaxton · #18 (**permalink**) 14-10-2009, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SheffieldLass

Hi Chris

If I send Yorkshire records to you, do I get sent BMS record reference numbers for them?... Just wondering as I'll also be passing on the records to Sorby, and the issue of duplication may arise otherwise as I presume/hope they send their records on to the BMS.

Also, if I press the 'send records' button on Mycorec, I know it changes the data on the database, as it gives a warning message that it will do (which is the reason why I've not tried it yet

). What actually gets changed? Is it just a tick box to say that they have been submitted? Maybe I should do a test run on a duplicate copy of the software to see what happens as I wouldn't want 700+ records to get scrambled .... (Well I have tinkered with the software, so I could have inadvertently upset something in the process.)

cheers
Melanie

Melanie
It creates a file for you to email to Paul Kitk at the FRDBI and as you say ticks the box on your records to say they have been sent. Paul will then send back a file to be imported by Mycorec with the FRDBI numbers for each of your records.

Mal

SheffieldLass · #19 (**permalink**) 15-10-2009, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flaxton

Melanie
It creates a file for you to email to Paul Kitk at the FRDBI and as you say ticks the box on your records to say they have been sent. Paul will then send back a file to be imported by Mycorec with the FRDBI numbers for each of your records.

Mal

Thanks Mal. I plucked up courage to play around with it after having done a backup of everything. Only 2 bugs that I've introduced .... just tried to correct one and crashed the program so that it wouldn't even open

. Had a look at the txt file that gets produced so I've now seen what info gets sent. Hmmm ... all my notes ..... could be embarassing. And all the doubtful ones too. There doesn't seem to be a way to edit out the doubtful ones without a bit of code writing. I had hoped there was a way to select what gets sent but it seems to be all or nothing. Or quite a bit of manual editing of the txt file and altering tick boxes in the database.

Back to the drawing board for revisions, and no doubt lots of program crashes 'til I get it to do exactly what I want it to ... I guess that is the price for being a bit too fussy for my own good

...

cheers
Melanie

Chris Yeates · #20 (**permalink**) 15-10-2009, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antenna

Chris,

You're misleading people if you're implying that ABFG sits on data. Anyone with Internet access can use CATE to find plenty of information at 10km resolution. It's made available as soon as it's sent in by recorders. Already there are hundreds of records for October 2009. I don't call that sitting on data!!

If you're not sure why NBN hasn't yet taken CATE's records yet then you should ask NBN. It's not because ABFG wishes to withhold data! ABFG and NBN are working together to get the data feed set up. You may have your own reasons for implying that ABFG is secretive with its data. It patently isn't, as anyone who uses CATE may see.

Regards,
John

fair do's - clearly things have moved on since I last looked . . .

based on a post yesterday evening I thought I would test out the CATE database (as this was a first visit, it is possible that I was missing some fundamentals - if so then please bear that in mind when considering the following)

I decided to look for records of Pholiotina arrhenii (Conocybe arrhenii to current UK thinking - though not to the rest of the world - but anyway merely a matter of opinion, and one would hope that those around the world interested in fungi would be able to make use of CATE)

the BMSFRD database pointed me to 436 records, via a link from Pholiotina to Conocybe; the CATE one - based, one assumes, on its lauded "Synonym Look-up facility" - told me it didn't know what Pholiotina was . . .

admittedly, a search for arrhenii would have brought up records, but to look for all the species in genus / section Pholiotina would require a lot of separate searches - around twenty - and you would have to know all the possible specific epithets for it to work

the first record you come to for this taxon on the BMSFRD site is an old Miles Berkeley record of "Agaricus mesodactylius": CATE with its "Synonym Look-up facility" didn't recognise mesodactylius

I am very interested in phytoparasitic fungi and am compiling data for a series of papers on the different groups of plant parasites, with regard to their distribution and host relationships, in Yorkshire; clearly the CATE database is a potential source of useful data for this project (and would of course be acknowledged wherever relevant); is there a way of getting further information than - again plucked out at random:

Association of British Fungus Groups - CATE Database » Species View

I know that this powdery mildew occurs on hogweed along pathsides in Vice-county 63, but this particular record - without a location and/or grid is useless for my purposes . . .

am I missing something here? I hope I am

:

Chris