Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes

Calendar

Are the submitted images of insects used for scientific studies of species distributions?

I have a quick question that I haven't yet managed to find the answer to on this site: are the insect photo submissions used purely to help with the identification of North American bugs, or are the records used for the scientific study of species distributions and phenologies?

I ask the question because I am wondering whether, once I have received an ID for an insect on this site, I should then post the sighting on a site like iNaturalist so that the data can be used by scientists interested in tracking the distributions of insects in North America.

Many thanks in advance.

Images are also used scientifically
to document species associations, e.g., between insects and their host plants

I wish we would prioritize identification and documentation of associates

Not always...
I am working on a monograph of the Elateridae of the southeastern U.S. Early on, I asked several entomologists their thoughts on using BG data and the overwhelming consensus is no, that records in formal publications (revisions, faunal studies, etc.) should be based on curated species in reputable professional and private collections. That way, if there is question on an ID or record, the specimen can be re-examined.

I am also working on a catalogue of N.A. Elateridae, and since that will be state listings only, I am contemplating using BG data only when the species is absolutely, beyond doubt, identified correctly to the species level.

 
"Several" is not an overwhelming consensus
and available resources and attitudes are changing

Images curated on Bugguide are far more accessible for re-examination than are non-imaged specimens in collections

There are misidentified images on Bugguide, but in my opinion the percentage of misidentifications in collections including our national collection is higher, if only because many were identified long ago whereas most Bugguide images were identified recently (and can easily be re-examined, see above)

Of course only records that are beyond doubt should be accepted as fully valid, but it may be appropriate to cite probable records, whether based on specimens or images, in an appendix treating hypothetical occurrences. Many identifications from specimens including those that have already been published are doubtful too!

Yes, BugGuide data are already collected and used
You can read some of John VanDyk's comments in this thread

 
Thank you!
Thanks for clarifying that for me!

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.