Outside range of known coordinates

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Outside range of known coordinates

Outside range of known coordinates, a somewhat ambiguous statement, which also carries an implication or two.  To put things in context I go out everyday barring bad health, inclement weather, camera malfunctions, and family functions, but even with the latter I have a camera to hand just for the purpose of recording wildlife. Everyday, sometimes taking near  on 2000 images of, in the man Arthropoda,  and of course wildlife in general. I hasten to add not 2000 species, I wish, but I do, nearly everyday find something I have never recorded before, many times exceeding 20 in the latter category. On many occasions I have found firsts for VC53, unfortunately I don't always carry collecting phials. I am of the opinion that in these modern times digital photography is enough to ID anything. I am well aware that there will always be those things in nature that confounds even the best high tech equipotent  and the necessary voucher specimens are the only way.to gain an ID. With regard to vouchers and in respect of a first for the UK, Conostethus venustus* being the species, With such a claim Colin Smith the county recorder for  Heteroptera plant bugs & allies paid me a visit to collect a voucher, and he was successful,  my find was then reported in the "Het News". Sadly all the sites where C. venustus could be found are now non supportive ether down to being built on, or complete mismanagement  in as much that the host plant* has been prevented from re-seeding due so called maintenance.  Okay, the point I am making is that the "Outside range of known coordinates" implies that one could be lying. Surely what the reply to such a record should be is a congratulatory one, not a challenge to it's authenticity.  Basically the challenge is ridiculous for the only way such coordinates can be confirmed is by a body of naturalists going out and checking it for themselves, hence my reference to the C. venustus saga. What is the point of me continuing to supply records if my expertise, and there validity is always going to be challenged***.  The NBN recorder cleaner is accountable for much of the controversy on this site, but the bottom line is why you, the admin team continue to use it in its present unacceptable state.
Mick E. Talbot

* It was pointed out to me by one Tim Ransome, an entolmoogist from the Channel Isles that I was the first person to record C. venustus in the UK, and that Jim Flanagan's claim on behalf of a second party was incorrect.  It would be nice if this situation could be rectified, but its not what I am about, so I let it go. Out of interest I will mention that it is now on the British list of Heteroptera.

** Scentless Mayweed being the host plant is an annual and if cut before it has dispersed its seeds its presence will be removed.

*** I am aware that I am not alone in this critique, I'm sure admin is too? 

John H Bratton
Its just a computer programme

Its just a computer programme, not a team of investigative journalists. No one is saying you were lying.


John Bratton

Outside range of known coordinates

Admin team/

Quote John Bratton, "Its just a computer programme, not a team of investigative journalists. No one is saying you were lying." Unquote John Bratton.

You miss the point, I am not casting aspersions, just pointing out the implications of such a statement, apart from the fact that it is often misleading.  An example, http://data.nbn.org.uk/Taxa/NBNSYS0000006897/Grid_Map , the NBN map for Chrysotoxum festivu shows far more than 66 records and whats more they cover a substantial area of the British Isles.  Looking at the iRecord map http://www.brc.ac.uk/irecord/species-details?taxon_meaning_id=25196  which, if the interpretation of "Outside range of known coordinates" is taken literally puts my records well within  range, if the NBN records count? The iRecorder map is misleading for the 66 records all indicated by blue markers also include my seven which is a contradiction of the subject of this comment, isn't it. Whichever way one looks at it there seems to be something amiss, maybe even remiss?  Or should I be using the word condescending?

I do not mean to offend, but as is, you offend me on just about every thing I put up. Okay I have not got a degree in entomology, or any of the ologies alluding to nature, does that make me incompetent, or inexperienced?  Considering I am retired and that I spend all my spare time recording and observing nature and have done from early childhood, so my reply to the latter is a categorical no!  Sure I seek advice or an ID or two, but don't you?


Mick E. Talbot.

Matt Smith

The maps on iRecord are generated purely from data entered into iRecord.  They have no connection to any records displayed on the NBN gateway at all.  They are not purporting to be a comprehansive species distribution map.  They will, at some point, be added to the Hoverfly dataset and be included in the overall national map.  Currently the NBN Hoverfly dataset has not been updated on the NBN for over 5 years.

It does seem to me that you are looking at the system generated comments produced by iRecord in a very personal manner and seem to take it as a personal affront that somehow one of your records has been in some way "questioned".  I would agree with you that some of the record cleaner text can be offputting and confusing and, TBH, I would question the need for such as "rules" on the system anyway.  However, nothing on the system is designed to question your competance in recording, entomology degree or not.

The rationale behind the "Record Cleaner" and the rules set is explained here - http://www.nbn.org.uk/Tools-Resources/Recording-Resources/NBN-Record-Cle....  Personally, I find it more of a help than a hinderance when trying to prepare a dataset for submission to the NBN Gateway and prefer to stick to using the older NBN Exchange Format validator, which checks the file from a "technical" point of view (ie is it all in the right format) rather than fussing at me about "out of range" records for data I have already checked over, otherwise it would not be in the file.

From an iRecord point of view, for a final time I can only reiterate my initial comments regarding the various Record Cleaner messages - ignore them.  I get the same messages appearing on some of my records made in my garden, and I am the person who is doning the actual validation of the records.   Ignore them and spend your time more productively recording wildlife.




Peter Pearson
I agree with Matt

Why waste time arguing over computer generated comments, trivia. I know what I see and record and attempt to photograph. I have no qualifications other than the University of Life with regard to natural history, except nearly 70years of observation.

Let's get it all down on record and try to prevent the rapid decline of our wildlife, that should be our aim.

That my two penny'th,


Log in or register to post comments