More thoughts on PSL...

How things can change in a week. Sometimes we need to have a word with ourselves, to bring us back to reality, a grounding if you like. In recent times I have not only been birding or mothing. I have been looking at everything from Spiders to Mosses and Beetles to fruit flies. All that I have identified or had identified for me have been carefully added to my list. What used to be on a crappy old spreadsheet is now on a fabulous all singing and dancing searchable website.

Today, the alarm bell has rung. While I was already awake.

Seth Gibson, Alastair Forsyth and Steve Gale have all debated the topic on their blogs, that I have read with great interest. These three naturalists and bloggers are a real inspiration to me, so when one speaks I tend to listen.

The thing is, with the rise of PSL there is perceived to be a decline in actual biodiversity recording standards whereby listers are not being as rigorous as they should be when listing a new form of life.

Where people are concerned, no recording system with a competition factor will be clean. Looking on the PSL website, I see that Red necked Nightjar has been included by one observer, who would need to be at least 180 yrs old to have seen the only British record! That's their choice I suppose, but the species on my list are at the very least, plausible, and most are accurate with a few being aggs, or the commonest of a bunch based on distribution etc, but I if I tick a species on that basis, I will not add a congener as I couldnt be sure its different to the one I already have. For example I have Dandelion but not to species, I have Mouse Spider as Scotophaeus blackwallii as it is by far most likely but Ive not had any scrutinised. Mouse Spiders twin will not be added without both being checked and the same with Dandelions etc. 

Things are added to iRecord but if they don't meet the verifier's criteria that's ok, I'll have learned something and will move on.

I know birds, moths, mammals, butterflies and most fish even, quite well, but once these groups are  becoming less likely to be a new addition, along comes flowering plants, fungi and invertebrates. Anyone who has perused the Naturespot site or the British Arachnological Society page for example, will know full well that very few of these can be brought to accurate species level without the use of various scientific methods and equipment. Yet we novices ( maybe not the right word? How can I be a novice after 50 years of wildlife watching?) still plod along trying to match species to images and text in books on websites and in social media. Maybe we ( I) are /am deluded?

I think I know the reason. I am not and never will be a scientist. I was and probably still am an Urchin, a Poacher, a Tresspasser, Billy Casper, BB, Ennion, Iain Niall, a Ladybird book, a throwback to times past. 

I don't have a microscope and have never really used a Dichotomous key. I might like to, but will I ever? I'm not sure it matters enough to me but who knows, never say never. I like to find new things for much simpler reasons, and no, its not to add to a list. It is to enjoy the chase, the find and the beauty. The list just keeps the treasures in an order where I can find them again. 

So I'm sure I and many others will continue in this way until we either see the light or give up. Keep on Listing folks, but try to keep it as real as possible!  

Oonops. Its one of the two...

Wool Carder Bee, added to the list today after finding my first in the garden on Sunday. A scarce species in Northumberland