|
|
Post by stigofthedump on Sept 13, 2015 8:20:25 GMT
Following on from a thread which evolved to a few passing comments on the use of devices which could enable the lay-person to identify species with no more input from the operator than a scan I posed the question. Who would not make use of such a device and why? My position was that I would.
Other members thoughts on this welcome. 
Vince |
|
|
|
Post by teasel on Sept 13, 2015 10:51:54 GMT
I think I would use it, but I would also use an ID book, to see if I could get the same answer. That way I could learn the plants and not need the techy device so much. That way I could maybe ID things even if I'd forgotten the device. So I'd use it as another tool along with the ID books and helpful forums like WABI |
|
|
|
Post by stigofthedump on Sept 13, 2015 20:59:09 GMT
I think I would use it, but I would also use an ID book, to see if I could get the same answer. That way I could learn the plants and not need the techy device so much. That way I could maybe ID things even if I'd forgotten the device. So I'd use it as another tool along with the ID books and helpful forums like WABI And a fantastic learning tool for the lone student. Well said.
Vince |
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Sept 13, 2015 23:19:12 GMT
Give me the books every time! Just bought volume 1 of 'Flora Europaea' for a bargain £10, trouble is the other 4 volumes are £40 each.... It's superb, and actually makes 'Stace' look like a pamphlet! Hmmm I love a good flora - gadgets, never! Ha!
Oh maybe just a few gadgets then......
|
|
|
|
Post by peachysteve on Sept 14, 2015 8:07:00 GMT
I would certainly use one. Many species groups, particularly those that hybridise, can be difficult to ID with confidence. Imagine the certainty you could have with this gadget. That would enable you to look for those features specific to any given species or hybrid. It would be clearer which plants you'd need to pop in the machine and which you could identify by eye.
If you are doing a site survey you need to be able to identify most with a quick look and have your eye trained to spot those little differences which call for closer examination.
With a well trained eye and a nifty gadget you'd be able to make a rapid and accurate assessment.
|
|
|
|
Post by faith on Sept 14, 2015 8:27:59 GMT
See technology? I was just uploading a long reply to this last night when something crashed and I lost it all. But seriously, I imagine everyone has a line they would draw, only they draw it in different places. When I first got the Stace-based app a couple of years ago, several of my colleagues looked quite shocked – although I see that many of them have now surreptitiously acquired one for themselves. My argument in favour is that it saves me carting heavy books around, but you need a good deal of existing knowledge and experience to use it successfully, and there are always going to be cases where you need a second opinion. And it will be a long time, I guess before dna gadgets actually cover everything (and can be bought by non-millionaires) and even longer before Stig's ID scanner comes on the market.
Aeshna's point about surveys is a good one: it would save such a lot of time and effort and so a lot more work could be done. But for enjoyment and learning, there's nothing to beat consulting several sources simultaneously – a book with good illustrations, Google images ( a great resource for checking things out), a local flora, Stace, Poland, BSBImaps, and even the Flora Europea if you can get it as cheaply as John has done (you can get bits of it, at least, online too).
|
|
|
|
Post by stigofthedump on Sept 14, 2015 17:50:32 GMT
Interesting posts.
I too think if such technologies were to become available it would change the way species were mapped. Bio-Blitz events could generate a great deal more data for example.
I submit bryological records to my County recorder, sometimes submitting specimens for his opinion. Some of these get passed on for an expert to look at, often coming back as inconclusive, a species that might not get mapped in this instance.
I'm in total agreement re the books and, I must add, microscope work. It is something that I enjoy working with. A specimen that taxes me is a joy, and a frustration, that keeps me enthralled. Thus the negative argument, for me, would be. Would this technology make me lazy and lead me away from the the very part of my work that I love the most.
Double edged sword?
Vince |
|
|
|
Post by silversea on Sept 21, 2015 0:44:00 GMT
I would love something that could make identifications from scanning or otherwise. Especially if it was able to analyze something like genitalia without dissection...
But in general this would make field work so much easier and efficient, with no needed time to sit down, open up the ID key, or not be certain on an ID until getting back home or to the lab. Such technology would be very significant in terms of data, several cryptic or difficult species will be easy to identify and this will significantly boost the knowledge of their range and distribution.
|
|
|
|
Post by faith on Sept 21, 2015 8:12:46 GMT
Easier and more efficient maybe, but wouldn't the motivation to do it at all be diminished, because it would no longer be so enjoyable – just another job to be done with ease and efficiency?
|
|
