Southern Damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale female

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

This is why I earlier mentioned websites being mostly unreliable.

Unfortunately the same sort of errors also creep into books and other publications (sometimes because publishers/printers have introduced the errors after proof reading, but most often because it is easy for errors to be made and missed - especially when the identifications are being made from photographs!.

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

Interesting too Roy that the pic shown on Ireland's Dragonflies is suspect!

That reminds me of the female Ischnura elegans on the British Dragonfly site which is said to be a male, even worse! If I'm not wrong it looks like they now have a male calling it a female on the new site? And we are supposed to respect these experts who know better and will not admit they have it wrong?

I've sent emails regarding both websites - it's important to remember though that websites like these are often managed by volunteers (who will not necessarily be experts), and although they may seek clarification from others when queries are raised it will not necessarily result in a change even when an error has correctly been pointed out (there could be various reasons for this without needing to assume that they are not admitting that there is a mistake).

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

On the old site they also had a mating pair of I think a Migrant Hawker with a female Southern Hawker, with a note saying a reader had alerted them to the different species mating but they hadn't noticed! They have removed that now, I wonder why! Could it be there is some uncertainty about the male fitting the shape of the female pronotum?

The pronotum shape thing only applies to damselfly species (male dragonflies grip the back of the eyes, not the pronotum), although the shape of the males abdomenal appendages are still diagnostic in many species.

[JRsbugs]

Originally Posted by RoyW

I've sent emails regarding both websites - it's important to remember though that websites like these are often managed by volunteers (who will not necessarily be experts), and although they may seek clarification from others when queries are raised it will not necessarily result in a change even when an error has correctly been pointed out (there could be various reasons for this without needing to assume that they are not admitting that there is a mistake).

I think you will remember when I asked if anyone noticed anything about the so-called male Roy, and I'm sure it was you who looked and spotted the error too. I had emailed someone on the committee list about it and that was a long time ago now, I think it was the secretary. He emailed back, saying he was sure it was a male but he would pass my comments on to the owner of the pic who was the owner of the website! That doesn't quite fit into the volunteer error category, it is a non admission of a mistake or they don't know their damsels as well as one would expect. I hadn't been looking at them for long then, and it was obvious to me.

The pronotum shape thing only applies to damselfly species (male dragonflies grip the back of the eyes, not the pronotum), although the shape of the males abdomenal appendages are still diagnostic in many species.

Thanks for the clarification, but it was still not what would be expected if species can only reproduce with the same species. This raises more queries, i.e. I gather it's not a common thing but I have been told before that species do not interbreed. It does raise a big question mark to me as to whether some species are more closely related than thought.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

I think you will remember when I asked if anyone noticed anything about the so-called male Roy, and I'm sure it was you who looked and spotted the error too. I had emailed someone on the committee list about it and that was a long time ago now, I think it was the secretary. He emailed back, saying he was sure it was a male but he would pass my comments on to the owner of the pic who was the owner of the website! That doesn't quite fit into the volunteer error category, it is a non admission of a mistake or they don't know their damsels as well as one would expect. I hadn't been looking at them for long then, and it was obvious to me.

Yes it was me who agreed with you when you mentioned this in a previous post. I had meant to sent an email to the BDS webmaster at the time but it wasn't one of my highest priorities and I never got round to it.
However, all positions within the BDS (with the exception of the Conservation Officer) are filled by volunteers - and although everyone who agrees to take on unpaid roles like these will be interested in the subject, it does not necessarily follow that they are experts. As I said, there are many reasons why the photo/caption may not have been changed in a case like this (including the consideration that the majority of people visiting the websites would be very unlikely to notice, and those that do will be unlikely to need the website as an ID source). Perhaps it doesn't give the ideal impression to those who do notice, but I would presume that very few people have commented on this so it has not been felt that it is necessary to check with the experts within the society, or make any changes. This isn't exactly a failure to admit a mistake, and there is no reason to assume that the people who are prepared to donate the time to the construction/running of a website for a particular group will get everything 100% correct (they are only human, and no doubt have many other commitments).

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

Thanks for the clarification, but it was still not what would be expected if species can only reproduce with the same species. This raises more queries, i.e. I gather it's not a common thing but I have been told before that species do not interbreed. It does raise a big question mark to me as to whether some species are more closely related than thought.

As a general rule species do not interbreed, but as anyone who has any interest in wildlife is aware (yourself included), the fact that hybridisation does sometimes occur does not mean that the two are not separate species. Attempted mating is sometimes seen between species that are quite clearly not closely related, and even when copulation takes place there is no guarantee that any offspring will result (let alone viable offspring that are able to survive and reproduce).

[wint]

With respect to the BDS website, I have found George, the webmaster, to be extremely helpful. There were over 200 web pages to migrate to the new website and a few mistakes are bound to happen. I had links to all the old site's species pages and found that a couple were missing in the new site. George's response was "We are very grateful for having these errors pointed out so that we can correct them."

In the insect galley here on WAB, photos have to be submitted with english and scientific names and then approved. Yet out of 12 photos of female 'Variable Damselfly' 3 are obviously Azure Damselflies and another 3 look most likely to be Azures. 6 are definitely Variables. I haven't bothered to tell the individual photographers because (a) in the big scheme of things does it really matter? and (b) they might be shy retiring types who might take offence and never contribute to WAB again and that would be a pity.

I would be extremely grateful if people who find errors in my webpages (there should be a link in my sig at the bottom) would let me know about them. I work in IT and know that checking your own work is never really a check!

My own personal view is that looking through images on the internet to identify Dragonflies is no substitute for having one or two modern fieldguides (and remembering to open them and read them rather than just looking at the images!) but we all have different learning styles.

Paul

[JRsbugs]

On the contrary, when I was starting to get into anything I saw and wanting to identify what I had, the first site I went to for dragonflies was the BDS as I viewed that as a site which I should be able to rely on but I did research elsewhere to find out as much as I could. It's a jungle out there when you start knowing nothing.

I'm afraid the response I got to try to point out the error was not so good, and when I was new at dragonflies that was not easy. You might say it was like trying to tell a dentist you had a problem with a filling but they often will not admit it when it's so obvious with the result that trust is broken. That dentist might listen to another dentist though! I was as polite as could be but I knew it was incorrect so felt I had to try to tell them. I would myself run a mile when rebuked, it certainly did not encourage me to become a member if I had so been inclined. Perhaps that is a good thing, I can do my own investigations and look with an open mind.

I am aware that human error does occur, but how many people are aware that there are errors and use the site, (which one would expect to be able to, more so that an author of a dragonfly book is on the committee) my guess is there would be a good many as not all of us specialise in one type on insect or invertebrate, I do what I have and that would require a great many expensive books.

There are many wrongly named pics on this site, that is why I stopped putting any in as who is to know the correct name if they all look different. As this site is used as a learning aid for some schools, I really do think it matters. If you don't know the name for certain, then leave it out or you will be party to the ever increasing wrong information.

I don't personally profess to be a professional at anything but I do try to get my facts straight, I would also welcome anyone pointing out errors to me as I am still learning and by doing is the best way to learn. I'm not a professional body, just someone who has an interest which is constantly growing. I know that at times my mind thinks one thing and my fingers type another, more so when I am tired, that is mainly due to a nerve injury from a RTA which causes swelling and blocking off part of my brain which should coincide with the current thought but at times it reverts to what is already in my memory store at times with hilarious results.