What the FRDBI and CATE databases can (and cannot) tell us.

[cybershot]

Prompted by a recent find of Hericium erinaceus by fellow Wabber and Mushketeer Garry Rickard, and subsequently quizzing him on it's location to discover, not entirely surprisingly, that it was in the New Forest (Check the WAB Gallery ), I decided to see what the two national databases revealed about the distribution of this species.

Interestingly the very limited evidence from WAB was also borne out by the BMS FRDBI data base where over 50% of the 266 records are from the New Forest (VC11). In stark contrast, of the 37 ABFG CATE records of this species showing in ten vice counties, none are from the New Forest. CATE data readily endorsed the Checklist of the British & Irish Basidiomycota in it's statement that it is "Virtually confined to old deciduous woodland in southern and south-western England". Gleaning such a breakdown by VC and habitat from the FRDBI was far too laborious but as the basis of the Checklist it undoubtedly concurs.

The shortcomings of both routes of investigation are self evident and it will be interesting to hear what Paul Kirk has to say on the subject of "The Way Forward with FRDBI" during discussions at the forthcoming BMS Annual Open Meeting at Kew on Saturday. In the aftermath it would be encouraging to the field community within both camps to learn that hatchets were to be buried and resources combined to give the widest possible scope in one dataset or that the BMS were going to follow the ABFG lead and make investment to provide their unmatchable fund of data in an up-to-date easily analysed format.

David

[Michael Jordan]

One explanation why CATE does not have records of H. erinaceus from the New Forest lies in that the Hampshire F.G. is one of the local groups that has yet to copy its fungal data into the system. Most local groups are now doing so, but if we don't have access to the data we can't make it available.

The issue of duplication is a vexing one. It is worth remembering that field mycology is actually a very small, cash-strapped element in the great order of things. CATE was developed, paid for in one way and another by ABFG members, for 2 significant reasons that are likely to get lost in the political mire.

One is that after a decade awaiting authoritative reference sources for Important Fungus Areas, Biodiversity Action Plans and Red Lists for fungi, none had materialised satisfactorily, and part of the responsibility has lain in the lack of a modern, technologically efficient UK fungal data system. The other is a matter of culture. The AGFG was founded, not least to free field mycology from the style of exclusivity and elitism that has plagued and left it as one of the back-markers in conservation circles. In data terms, the mantra of the ABFG is that those who deliver have a right also to be be able to analyse data. In short, CATE is not a duplication of the FRDBI, and to now duplicate CATE would make very little sense either economically or mycologically.

A fundamental question for the field community is what does it really want to support? Does it want to look back on another ten years of two voluntary organisations perennially imitating one another, and squandering scarce resources by doing so, or to use its vote for an intelligent division of labour? It comes back to the fundamental question of whether field mycology has been better served by a BMS and an ABFG each taking its own focus of responsibility, or by one monolith. Either way the future is in the hands of the field community and one hopes that it will consider its options wisely.

Michael Jordan
CEO - ABFG

[Fungalpunk]

The ease of access and use of the CATE database is what encourage struggling enthusiasts like myself to carry on. 2 simple factors but mightily important. Quick effective assessments of totals and sites can be made in a matter of clicks and the user-friendliness concurs with the whole ABFG approach.

Replication of data I suppose is better than no data at all and I hope there can be a merging of minds and all can focus on what they do best. There is a place for both organistaions I feel and both can play an equally effective role in promoting and protecting fungi. Being a member of the ABFG I have no complaints whatsoever and find everything so approachable. I have always hated the stuffy traditionalist approach and this swayed my initial decision to join a group. I do know a few people who are BMS members though and they have been extremely helpful too so there ya go.

Up the fungi is all I can say - it is what matters at the end of the day.

Fungalpunk Dave

[cybershot]

I agree that, as realised by so many groups nationwide who have already copied their records into CATE, and on the understading of how relatively easily the FRDBI data could be assimilated, it makes little economic sense for the BMS to spend hard found funds just to more or less replicate an existing, tried and tested system which has already had the 'thumbs up' from the likes of the National Biodiversity Network Trust, the Natural History Museum, the National Trust, and JNCC.

David

[Michael Jordan]

By way of a small postscript to this thread, CATE has today registered its 50th Version 3 field recorder. I should explain that this does not represent 50 people delivering fungal records to CATE where the total is far higher. This refers to 50 field recorders using the most recent Version 3 of the recording software to deliver their fungal records into CATE online.

If CATE is to perform all the functions for which the investment was designed, it still needs a lot more recorders to come forward with data however.

Michael Jordan
CEO - ABFG