Observation field: New Zealand discovery
This observation is a first record of an exotic or native taxon wild in all or part of New Zealand. This includes considering public collections and databases outside of iNaturalist NZ.
jon_sullivan
Observations specifying this field
| Observation | New Zealand discovery |
|---|---|
Photos / Sounds
WhatSpotted Amber Ladybird Beetle (Hippodamia variegata)ObservermikefishnzDescriptionOn a sign post during a stopover in Cheviot. |
earliest online observation in NZ nationally |
Photos / SoundsWhatAcizzia albizziaeObserverdave_hollandDescriptionmany sub adults and nymphs on albizia |
earliest online observation in this NZ region |
Photos / SoundsWhatFern Mirid (Felisacus elegantulus)Observerdave_hollandDescriptionwhen i first saw it i thought it was a weird aphid but i dont think so. it was on a shining spleenwort. 2 individuals. |
earliest online observation in this NZ region |
| earliest online observation in this NZ region | |
Photos / SoundsObserverdave_hollandDescriptionsomething is causing leaf blisters on this blackwood |
earliest online observation in this NZ region |
Photos / SoundsWhatBirch Rust (Melampsoridium betulinum)Observerdave_hollandDescriptionalder rust |
earliest online observation in this NZ region |
Photos / SoundsWhatLeather-leaf Star-Miner (Philocryptica polypodii)Observerdave_hollandDescriptionmining pyrosia |
earliest online observation in this NZ region |
| earliest online observation in this NZ region | |
| earliest online observation in this NZ region | |
Photos / SoundsWhatLepista sublilacinaObserverdave_hollandDescriptionThese turned upmin a vege garden recently covered with spent mushroom farm compost. |
earliest online observation in NZ nationally |
| earliest online observation in NZ nationally | |
| earliest online observation in NZ nationally | |
Photos / SoundsObserverstephen_thorpeDescription18A Revel Ave, Mount Roskill, Auckland. At light. |
earliest online observation in NZ nationally |
Photos / SoundsWhatGenus OoperipatellusObserverdave_hollandDescriptionunter grosse stein im weld :D |
earliest online observation in this NZ region |
Photos / SoundsWhatWatersipora subatraObserverdave_hollandDescriptionLoads of theses under rocks at low tide |
earliest online observation in this NZ region |
Photos / SoundsObserverdave_hollandDescriptiona tiny "robber fly" sort of guy, much much smaller than the usual beasty robber flies, TINY, but the same MO, it was hunting sandflies above my onion patch. |
earliest online observation in this NZ region |
| earliest online observation in this NZ region | |
| earliest online observation in this NZ region | |
| earliest online observation in this NZ region | |
| earliest online observation in NZ nationally | |
| earliest online observation in this NZ region | |
| earliest online observation in NZ nationally | |
| earliest online observation in this NZ region | |
Photos / SoundsWhatHellebore Aphid (Macrosiphum hellebori)Observerdave_hollandDescriptionbad infestation |
earliest online observation in this NZ region |
| earliest online observation in this NZ region | |
Photos / SoundsObserverdave_hollandDescriptionA nematode worm infection that devastates our native rengarenga. It evidently can attack over 200 species worldwide. |
earliest online observation in NZ nationally |
| earliest online observation in NZ nationally | |
Photos / Sounds
WhatLizard's Claw Stinkhorn (Lysurus cruciatus)ObserverbigtreeDescriptionGrowing amongst clover in a section of the garden that had been covered with horse manure last year where garlic was grown. About 8 - 9 cm long. |
unsure |
| earliest online observation in this NZ region | |
| earliest online observation in this NZ region |
Projects Using This Field
New Zealand discoveries
Comments
I've had so many I can't recall them all.
Yes, I figured as much! :-)
It would be nice if we had something that could animate a map sequence to show the progress of an invasive species, having the first observations tagged like this would be a start.
What about something to designate entirely new species, rather than just new to NZ?
I produced a couple of animated gifs of the progress of the harlequin ladybird and the giant willow aphid. I should put them somewhere visible. Others have done likewise. Fairly easy to to do in QGIS.
@tony_wills Good point. How about "New species to science"?
It would be helpful if there was a way to search with some sort of filter which would show observations within a group which fall below some designated numeric threshold (eg. "my observations + diptera + fewer than 5 or fewer than 2, etc.).
I just tested it on a recent observation (https://inaturalist.nz/observations/11478971) and see that it will only accept one choice
(I tried doing it twice ... once for first in this region, and once for first time in a decade in NZ).
@steve_kerr Yes, you can only select one value in a field. I see your point that this is awkward. How about we breaking this into two fields, one for "first" options and one for "first time in a decade" options.
That would do. Also, I just added one for my observation of Eristalinus aeneus ... a first in this region. But then I had a second thought. This is a first for this region on iNat, but it may not actually be a first for this region if one were to review the literature (some of which is in French or German, etc.). That is, a lot of the old timers made observations of species or reviewed museum specimens or private collections and recorded these in their publications .... sometimes hard to find.
@steve_kerr OK. I'll keep this field "New Zealand discovery" and shift the "first in a decade" options to a new field, "New Zealand rediscoveries".
I was also thinking about how sure we can be sometimes that something is new. That's why I included "public" in "public collections and databases" in my description. Some collections are much easier to access and search than others. As long as we do our best, we can alter the classification of our observations as new information comes to light.
I'm out on this one. I just think you are creating a far too complex system for its worth.
@stephen_thorpe OK. Any suggestions on what a simple system would look like that you'd prefer? It's simpler now that the "first in a decade" options are shifted to another field.
I started this when I realised that I couldn't reliably filter by your "New to N.Z." tag without getting under the hood.
It depends on what you want to use it for. The discussion above has ventured into too complex ground. The first observation on iNat of a species is easily located on a species by species basis. Whether or not it is the first observation of a species ever in N.Z. (or some part thereof) is not easy to determine in general. This is especially true for species, particularly inverts, "new to science". At least for insects, there are vast historical collections (e.g. NZAC) still very incompletely sorted, and one would have to be as on top of the literature as I am to even know if there hadn't already been a published record. General users trying to grapple with all this will inevitably make mistakes, and these mistakes might be difficult to get corrected, particularly after a user has moved on. Sorry, but I just see this idea causing more chaos than it clears up! It might work for a few clear cut cases, but not for the majority of all cases.
What do you think of my suggestion that this be added to the filter options ? Wouldn't this be a way to find and sort rarely seen species ? If one wished, one could filter by region and by (low) number of observations to gain the insights we're talking about here.
I think it is best done on a species by species basis, i.e. you type in a species name and get all the observations mapped and listed for that species, from which you can easily see how many observations there are and where they are from.
@stephen_thorpe I see your point. This is all much easier with plants than inverts since most of the plant records are digitised and available (and there are vastly few taxa). Perhaps first record on iNat is all we can hope for. I was wanting to also highlight the taxa that, to the best of our collective knowledge, are actually first records for NZ. Perhaps that's not possible.
@steve_kerr Yes, I like that filtering idea. I'll see if I can get it working in R with rinat first. At the moment all we can do on the site is get a list of species ordered by how many observations you've made (https://inaturalist.nz/observations?place_id=6803&subview=table&taxon_id=47822&user_id=steve_kerr&verifiable=any&view=species). I see how it would be useful to also filter or sort these by how many total observations have every been made.
"Perhaps first record on iNat is all we can hope for"
Yes, but is that information useful for anything in particular? Also, if you do want to know the first iNat record for a species, for some reason, can't you do that fairly straightforwardly anyway, using existing functionality?
Even then, you have the complications of first observed vs. first uploaded, and the possibility of "first equal", but I don't see any of this helping any with documenting our biodiversity and ecology.
Jon said "This is all much easier with plants than inverts since most of the plant records are digitised and available (and there are vastly few taxa). "
No way! We haven't even scratched the surface. CHR is perhaps 20% digitised I believe, and that's one of the better digitised herbaria.
@cooperj The surface is definitely more than scratched for plants. AKL is digitised (all of it, I thought) and I think that's the second biggest.Many of the smaller herbaria are too. Virtual Herbarium makes discovering those records easy.
I thought CHR was higher than 20%. Some areas and taxa are much better. For example, I had two summer scholars work with Aaron at CHR several years ago to digitise all naturalised dicots from the wider Christchurch/Banks Peninisula area (minus the Armstrong collection which was in ownership limbo at the time).
OK the actual data for CHR is 40% digitised and other institutes less easily to figure out. But, whatever, even for plants you don't have the digital distribution data to say anything with certainty.
No. Auckland has 70% digitised and online. Better, but not great. Otago ...
@stephen_thorpe Perhaps there's a baby-bath water thing here. I agree that first on iNaturalist, while easy to detect, is meaningless for most taxa. Identifying first records from all accessible electronic records (NZ electronic databases and GBIF) still seems to me a useful thing to do. If anything, these would highlight the records that need a closer look.
What if there were two tiers here? "Possible first" for first on iNat, GBIF, etc, and "First" only for those few observations which get published in the scientific literature after a closer look.
Good idea Jon - but like Jerry I don't think I can remember them all. We are finding lots of new lichens (both new records for New Zealand but also new species). I usually try to note these facts in my comments section (I find it useful for my own records as much as anything else) - see Lecanora kohu as an example - there you even have what ended up being the Holotype documented), and the new Thelotrema we have just found. So I like the concept but wonder if I will remember to make the annotation. We shall see.
AK is Jon as far as I know the most fully digitized for all New Zealand Indigenous and Naturalized Plants - the only ones not done are those foreign collections and they are being done now. AK is the most advanced of the New Zealand Herbaria in this respect. From what I have seen of it CHR is the least.
@jon_sullivan I'm populating the taxon comments section for species with all sorts of information, including first records of exotics (from all available sources, including iNat observations), so a lot of useful info can be found there, for example: https://inaturalist.nz/listed_taxa/8330184
Good to see things have improved re digitisation. Over the years, and as GBIF Node Manager, I have carried out two national surveys (TFBIS funded) to assess the status of national biodata in museusm, CRIs and councils, with a view to GBIF NZ funding for digitisation. The reports are available somewhere. The situation was far worse, and still is in many sectors I expect. The exercise was to assess the scale of the task necessary to implement an NZ GBIF node. But DOC internalised the TFBIS fund and MBIE have not been not willing to properly fund GBIF. The consequence is that NZ is now far behind most countries that have signed the GBIF intergovernmental agreement. In CHR at least there has been funding to support digitisation of weeds, because if the biosecurity perspective. Less effort on natives. I very much doubt CHR is the worst. It would need another survey to accurately assess the current national picture.
@stephen_thorpe Thanks for doing that. Very helpful!
@stephen_thorpe @cooperj @pjd1 @steve_kerr
Thanks for your thoughts and criticisms. I've changed the fields to the following and will see how they work. I'm still open to abandoning this altogether but would like to give it a go first.
unsure
earliest online observation in NZ nationally
earliest online observation in this NZ region
earliest online observation in this NZ city/district
possible first observation of species new to science
validated first observation in NZ nationally
validated first observation in this NZ region
validated first observation in this NZ city/district
validated first observation of species new to science
I've also set up a project, "New Zealand discoveries" where these observations can all be found together. Adding an observation to that project will bring up the two fields, "New Zealand discovery" and "New Zealand rediscovery". One or both can be filled in.
My rationale for persisting with this is three-fold. Personally I'd like to know about how many important discoveries are being made across iNaturalist NZ, and how many are being made by members of the public that might not have been found otherwise. I keep my own list offline but I know it's incomplete.
I'd also like new users and people curious about iNat NZ to be able to see one of the scientific values in making observations of species they haven't noticed before.
Lastly, I'd like to be able to use these observations to illustrate to NZ institutions one of the scientific values of supporting the growth of iNaturalist NZ as a community and tech platform.
I've made this field to better keep track of the significant first observations of taxa being made by the iNaturalist NZ community. We've discovered a lot of new things but we've not had a consistent way on-site to mark them.
For the moment, I've got "first observation in NZ nationally", "first observation in this NZ region", "first observation in this NZ city", "first observation in over a decade in NZ", "first observation in over a decade in this NZ region", and "first observation in over a decade in this NZ city".
I'm meaning NZ's political regions since they are most familiar to people but perhaps ecological regions and districts should be included too (and any marine equivalents of those).
For now I've not separated arrivals of new exotics from newly discovered natives. I figure that can be determined from the taxon biostatus.
@clinton @stephen_thorpe, @tony_wills, @pjd1, @meurkc, @john_barkla @steve_kerr @david_lyttle @leonperrie @cooperj Any thoughts on other categories we should include?