Invert. database... what important inclusions?

[Jason Green]

Hi all,

I am currently in the process of creating a database to log all the invertebrates I have recorded - I am expecting to add about 400-ish.

I have so far added the following fields; Name, Family info (Super and sub, too...), Authority, UK status, Identifier, habitat, Date of find, Grid Refs naturally... are there any sections you'd add at all? I realise Status and maybe Authority aren't essential, but still thought I'd add them for the sake of interest, and reference when re-doing my site.

Once it's complete I will make a copy and divide it up into different areas to forward onto various UK Recording Schemes, as well as GiGL.

Any thoughts and advice welcome

Take care,

Jason

[ChrisR]

Sounds a fairly comprehensive list

Specimen Data labels contain: Location name, Grid Ref., date of capture, name of collector, method of capture (eg. swept, netted, malaise trap etc), host reared from (if appropriate), habitat etc.

Determination labels contain: Genus, species, author, sex, name of determiner, date of determination (usually just year of determination).

[Jason Green]

Just to clarify - on looking back at #1 I don't think I did - this is a computer-based spreadsheet covering my observations, photographic records (though those I have ID'd from will reflect obvious uncertainty where approriate ) and, upon occasion, captured specimens.

The Data/Determiner label criteria could of course be incorporated too - I never considered the Capture Method one, so will add another field. Subsequent responses could include Trapped, Observed, Photographed, etc.

[Jason Green]

Does anyone else here wish to tell us about their databases? I think it's pretty interesting - I have entered about 90 insects so far - some of course only to species-level - and among that, 16 Cicadellidae members. Now, I have been recording them from my garden and four other sites. Interestingly, I have only recorded one from more than a single site - that being Zygina flammigera from two localities. The other 15 have been seen in all five sites, just not apparent so far in more than the one I find them in.

Now, with under-recording being a big factor I'm sure I've missed them, but little things like this have the potential to show trends when put down in a table like this, don't you think - points you may over-look when simply recalling from memory?

One other interesting point; you know the green spider Nigma walckenaeri - the one with a very local distribution and classed as a Notable Na species? Well... I've found it present on 4/5 sites!! This makes me think that this one that is probably the rarest across the UK in my area, is perhaps one of the more common here.

[Acutipuerilis]

Hi Jason,
Interesting about the leafhopper distributions. I'm amazed you've not had the Empoasca species at more than one site - they're usually the most abundant species by a mile for me, wherever I look (especially in winter). As you say, it is possible that you'll pick up unnoticed patterns, but you may have to search very hard for them, especially while you're getting mostly common species. What are your five habitats, and the species distribution? Be interesting to see.

I use Mapmate for my data (still getting used to it!). On e potentially important thing is how many specimens you see - a single one doesn't mean a lot, but lots of adults (or nymphs present) implies an established population. Ity's generally useful to have a notes field as well, for all the occasional things that don't fit into standard categories.

[charlieb]

Originally Posted by Jason Green

points you may over-look when simply recalling from memory?

Get a notepad

[Jason Green]

Originally Posted by Acutipuerilis

I use Mapmate for my data (still getting used to it!). On e potentially important thing is how many specimens you see - a single one doesn't mean a lot, but lots of adults (or nymphs present) implies an established population. Ity's generally useful to have a notes field as well, for all the occasional things that don't fit into standard categories.

Oh, I have hundreds of Empoasca, likely vitis in my garden around a wild Silver Birch sapling - so many in fact I've obviously got used to them... and alas not many photos to see if I have decipiens in with them too

Good idea about a population field - adults, nymphs, etc. How do you think I could go about quantifying this in the table?

Originally Posted by charlieb

Get a notepad

...I already have the basic NotePad on my computer, just not very useful when I'm away from it

[tristanba]

Originally Posted by Jason Green

One other interesting point; you know the green spider Nigma walckenaeri - the one with a very local distribution and classed as a Notable Na species? Well... I've found it present on 4/5 sites!! This makes me think that this one that is probably the rarest across the UK in my area, is perhaps one of the more common here.

This spider is now very common in the south-east and probably beyond, certainly no longer worthy of Na status

[Jason Green]

Thanks Tristan. I thought it may expand, great news! A lovely spider

Out of interest, why was it given such status in the first place when it isn't native*? I mean, other introduced ones aren't, are they?

*I believe it was first found in Kew Gardens c100yrs ago.

[tristanba]

Originally Posted by Jason Green

Out of interest, why was it given such status in the first place when it isn't native*? I mean, other introduced ones aren't, are they?

*I believe it was first found in Kew Gardens c100yrs ago.

No idea Jason, status designations often seem very arbitrary don't they, at least for invert groups which are less well-known