Is it really hurting anything to use a wide angle view to help identify a plant-insect relationship?

should we really delete it?

I don't see anyone recommending deleting the name of the plant. The only disputes are where on BG to post a plant photo, if anywhere, and whether to keep such a photo on BG after an ID is obtained.

Laypersons don't usually know whether an association is new to science. I recently reared an Umber Skipper from an egg on a weedy grass and posted a life-cycle series for it. Shapiro and Manolis(1) say about hosts for this species: "In the East Bay largely on Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) in lawns, but inland presumably on native riparian grasses, not identified. Recently (2006) observed ovipositing on the naturalized grass Rytidosperma racemosum in Berkeley" (p. 247). So some of this skipper's hosts are unknown, and I may have found one new to science. Similar eggs were on other specimens of the same kind of grass. (This grass is definitely not Bermuda.) But I have no idea!

Yes, if it was new to science. Or it could be submitted elsewhere where it would be more useful to scientists. When I find something new, I send pictures and specimens to Pest Tracker or other relevant collections. The results are included in a Pennsylvania map or other publications. The trouble with the image that started this discussion is that it is not new to science. The ID of the plant remains questionable (see my answer to E. L. Rudden). Even if it was proven that the plant is exotic, you know as well as I that flower visitors accept readily other members of the same floral syndrome. This is why native bees are such good pollinators of apples, cherries and related fruits. They are already familiar with the blossoms of native crabapples and wild cherries. You can see by the photo that the flower resembles many species of native sunflowers who receive numerous species of visitors.

whether we wish to document species-level ecological associations on Bugguide? I hope we can even if in many cases new records may be redundant in terms of floral syndromes.

I think we should be gathering very extensive data about associations, not deciding a priori that one or a few examples of a syndrome are enough

I truly believe I have deleted too many interesting photos, and worst still, not even uploaded them because I know they are not exactly what everyone else is uploading. I'm sure you can appreciate the irony of that last part.

Your observation, "the plant may not even be what you think" is actually a good reason to keep the plant pictures. Such errors would never be corrected if the plant was deleted. In science, one should never throw away the original data. BG's purpose is to "expand on the natural histories of our subjects". The host plant is part of that natural history. Frassing it after it's ID'ed is like frassing the bug itself, but retaining its state and date in the Data tab. Do's and Don'ts states, "Do crop your image to emphasize the bug so we can make out details". This goal may be satisfied without sacrificing natural history information by posting the cropped image and the bug on its host plant. I'm all for frassing uncropped pictures unless they specifically serve such a purpose.

None of my botanist and gardener friends could ID the plant on the basis of this image. One summed it up as: "Seeing the foliage might help. Can't do much with just a single flower pic." It does not "specifically serve such a purpose."
The editor patiently explained the reasons for this image hindering the search by browsing through thumbnails and suggested that it be moved to Plant ID Section.
Let me repeat the reasons for removing uncropped images. It has nothing to do with amount of storage. That is no problem. It is about browsing through hundreds or even thousands of thumbnails. This kind of images slows down the search without adding any value to the guide. This is why many photos are taken out of the species pages. We should be grateful to editors who spend a great deal of time cropping or frassing unnecessary photos. It is because of this thankless job that the guide remains relatively clean and manageable.
The contributor dismissed all explanations and demanded preferential treatment for his post. If he had moved it to the Plant ID section to follow the same fate of other images posted there, that would be the end of this matter. I will have to do that move myself, it seems.

I guess I am expecting preferential treatment if preferential treatment means not putting up with rude condescending comments, and the practice of frassing people's images (not moving it to the plant identification section) at every opportunity and having them demand that I accept their judgement as final.

(BTW, I was not familiar with that plant ID section of the guide, but plan to experiment with using in the future).

Further, regarding moving the image, you did not "have to do it yourself", you choose to do it. It is not as though the world was about to come to an end, and had you not rushed to disarm this time bomb we would all blow up. Martyr drama aside, I appreciate the help, and I'm sorry I did not understand that feature, and so did not use it.

Further, I never said I was ungrateful for the help of editors cropping or frassing "unnecessary" images. I don't believe, however, that I am required to agree with the frassing of an imaged just because you or some other editor thinks it should be frassed. Is there not a 30 day period before frassed images are deleted? Is that not so that if someone, including the individual who posted it, disagrees with the frassing they have time to undo the move?

I did not dismiss any explanations I have been trying to understand why there is this culture of intolerance and urgency to expunge a photo of mine that basically just an effort to get an answer.

I know dealing with difficult people is just part of life. People snipe at each other everyday. There is a give and take. We have bad days and good days. I also know that some people are consistently rude, mean, and arrogant. This has nothing to do with the guide or rules or special treatment. It has to do with my own minimum standard for people who I am willing to interact with.

I can work with almost anyone. But I am not a doormat? Are you?

Finally, I really do appreciate the editors, yourself included Beatriz. You were one of the first people to give me some instruction on how to use Bugguide. I may not be considered your star pupil, but I don't forget that debt. I have often tried saying, "let me know an I will frass this, or move this", because if feel a little guilty for someone else having to do my work. I guess it's just as easy for an editor to move them as to say move them.

I've also tried to follow the proposed guides as to where to submit, instead of always submitting to ID request. I'm not an anarchist. I simply want to enjoy this site, and don't feel I should be beat up for doing things that aren't done with malicious intent.

"I don't believe . . . that I am required to agree with the frassing of an imaged just because you or some other editor thinks it should be frassed."

You're not required to agree. That would be mind control, wouldn't it? You're not even required to pretend to agree or to suffer in silence. Members can question or undo a move of their image.

"BTW, I was not familiar with that plant ID section of the guide"

That section has something going for it that you may not know about. Editors who are botanists check it regularly. Putting an image there increases the chance of an expert ID over putting it in the taxon for the bug.

My objection was specifically to frassing plant pics. The plant Plant ID Section is a perfectly appropriate place to put them (linked to the bug itself in its appropriate taxon page). However, the info page states, "It is intended that the final plant ID be placed on one of the arthropod's images and then the plant image be sent to Frass". I suggest this be removed or, better yet, replaced with a statement of intention that the pics be retained as a permanent archive to document plant associations for the reasons outlined in my original comment.

It way well be that the particular blossom that triggered this thread is unidentifiable to species and uninteresting regardless since bees are indiscriminant in such matters. Focusing on that point misses the general principle of preserving such original data for cases when it is useful. In case of doubt, I would suggest reserving judgment since it is far more difficult to create information than it is to destroy it.

Your comments seem very logical to me. In an era where storage is getting cheaper and cheaper, but at the same time data seems less and less studied the big picture view of scrapping everything one can amazes me. I've been interested in attaining some books on certain groups of insects found in the state and it is amazing how old the book references are. I can well imagine the day when some scientist's most asked question is, "What is that plant it's on?" Or even "What part of the county was that in." Undoubtedly frassed images aren't destroyed, they just become unavailable to most people.

I wish there were greater appreciation of the importance and novelty of these records and that there was a more efficient way to improve, maintain, and display these.

I also agree these are important. Beatriz mentioned below how the Discover Life website handles plants using B. impatiens as an example. Is less really more? One might also handle all of the bug photos here the same way. No photos...or only a few showing key characters. Would that be better than what we currently have? I don't think so.

I agree with Dr. Ascher that these photos, along with improved search functions would be highly useful...especially more so than having separate places to go for each aspect of interest. As you can tell from my sig, I may have a vested interest. But is this really any different than showing important pictures of a species with prey items?

I agree with you and Dr Ascher.
Improved search function, and a prey/food/other species relationships is important, and I do not think it will take over the guide. As proposed initially it was quite simple, some photo's would be very useful , but these are not to substitute for good cropping for individual ID purposes.

Could Bugguide handle this flow of information? It would need a section for just that purpose, or better yet, an entire new site. This has been discussed before. A Host and Habitat Section was created in 2007 and didn'd fly. So it was deleted. The Plant ID Section, on the other hand, has proven helpful. Most images are eventually frassed and the info is transferred to the main image of the series.
I am very interested on insect-plant associations. This is why I keep lists and photos of milkweed and goldenrod faunas, as well as a few others. I even invited others to contribute their photos. They may serve an educational purpose. At least, sometimes I get good feedback. I would love to see a website that deals with insect-plant associations beyond the lists provided by Discover Life or the Illinois database of flower visitors. There must be "a more efficient way to improve, maintain, and display these." But it is obvious that Bugguide isn't it; at least not yet; if we ever get Bugguide.2.0, we may have a chance. In the meantime, I'd rather see the guide focused on doing what it does best and keep hoping.

Just improved advanced search and data display functionality and the like.

Whether the site can handle more or different images or information depends on the technology employed.

If images showing diagnostic features of the host are frassed then that defeats the purpose of maintaining truly useful vouchering of the association. Such a possibility is a major advantage of image databases as opposed to traditional specimen collections where we cannot recheck plant identifications on most labels.

I wonder how we can recruit more botanists to help identiy host plants for bees and other insects? As far as I can tell most hosts remain unidentified or if identified then still unverified by experts, whereas most insects have credible and often very precise identifications and have been validated by a move to the guide. As data (if not in terms of site goals) the plants merit equal scrutiny.

http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/img_query?rel-taxon=begins+with&where-taxon=Arctotheca+prostrata

Sorry, I've no programing skills, I don't know how to make a hot link.

I'm suggesting Mac's photo is simply a good shot of something that most people let the auto features of a camera control.

To make a link, put this, in square brackets, before the URL:

url

And put this, in square brackets, after the URL:

/url

All run together with no spaces.

[http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/img_query?rel-taxon=begins+with&where-taxon=Arctotheca+prostrata]/url

Thanks for the steps to do this. Well, I guess I didn't understand. What posted seems to be what you told me to do.

I seem to have to search when I want to find the pages for tabs and such, as I've been infrequent the last few years, thought my submission folder has burst it's seams, has a page been made yet that gives all these little technical helps all on one spot, east to find from the home page? Each time I go through a computer, links are lost, or simply don't work after import to a new load if the whole thing didn't just self destruct in the first place.

I think this is
http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/img_query?rel-taxon=begins+with&where-taxon=Arctotheca+prostrata

Read about "How can I include a link to another page on the web?" here

http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/img_query?rel-taxon=begins+with&where-taxon=Arctotheca+prostrata

I think I understand, what I misunderstood in R. Berg's instructions now, thank you.

Nope, the [ url ] link [/url ](no spaces) didn't work for me.

Well this is unnecessary for this thread anyway, thanks for helping. I'll go read that page again.

It is the same floral syndrome, so it is visited by many insects that frequent sunflowers: Nothing new there. The point is that we don't need images of every flower visited by every insect. We don't want to swamp the guide with gazillions of pictures. This would hurt Bugguide. Frassing unnecessary images is the right thing to do.
Take a look at how the Discover Life website deals with flowers visited by specific bees Bombus impatiens. A list of more than 100 plant species, both native and not. No images!

They are live and on the DL site you can in fact retrieve the full label data if from a pinned specimen. Hardly DL's fault that such data are limited.

If the association is based on the image you can in fact view the image on both the plant and the insect species pages in many cases, or at least in the images galleries where it resides. Thus, images are available, if they exist, and are used for multiple purposes.

Plant images, yes. Wide views of the insect on the plants, no. DL has links to images of plants (located in a different section), and Bugguide does the same thing whenever possible. They are links to the USDA database, plus links to plants on DL (thanks H. Go).

I don't see DL photo documenting every plant an insect visits. In most cases the reported ID is enough, which, once again, is the same thing we do at Bugguide. See a few examples: 1, 2 and 3. After the plant is IDed and the info added to the first image (thanks mostly to John Pearson), the long shot of the plant is most often frassed. All this was discussed previously here. I have removed some of my own images of dogwood and ash, for instance. The image that started all this discussion doesn't really help. I have shown it to several botanists and gardeners and they all say that they would need to see more of the plant. Scott Peden's ID is probably correct and to be trusted because he is familiar with the flora of the area. He should copy and paste his comments under the main image of the fly, the first one. Afterwards, the long shot would not be really needed, although it does no harm where it is placed now, in a different section. The behavior of the editor who frassed that photo in the first place was perfectly correct. His decision could be challenged but not treated as a personal attack.

No need to blame DL or Bugguide for not having better documentation because, as you said elsewhere, it is a matter of technology and functionality which boils down to funds. We could do a lot more if we had the funds. I wish people realized this.

EVERYBODY WHO ENJOYS AND BENEFITS FROM BUGGUIDE.NET: CONTRIBUTE AND CONTRIBUTE GENEROUSLY. Only then we will be able to see more functionality and expansion to other areas.

You are right about the fact that more could be done with more funds. While I guess that statement is pretty much applicable to any organization I will make a contribution. Understand, it by itself won't make a difference. And, I'm not needing to see it get better. Like all living systems (so to speak) The Bugguide needs care and maintenance. I am able to supply the equivalent of some triple anti-biotic ointment. It won't cure everything, but it might help a little!

Edward, first of all, thanks for your comments, and this does not effect the validity of your argument, but in this particular instance we are discussing a Syrphid fly, Allograpta exotica visiting a South African Capeweed. Many native flowers are no longer in bloom do to our drought. I thought it was interesting that this flower was still available to the various pollinators. Anyway, I just thought I'd set the record straight on that, and again thanks for your comment.

Beatriz, nothing new here either.

John, I appreciate your comment. None of us has the same motives, experience, objectives, or skills. Very few people I can think of impart as much information to others as you! You get it!

I don't like that there is as much effort to evaluate people here is there is to evaluate bugs. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. I have been contributing for over 7 years. I have offline communications with people who complain they are afraid to make an ID or move a photo because doing so is likely to get them ridiculed! Most (none?) of the people at Bugguide want to address this. I don't either. But ask yourselves: Do you really want people afraid to ask questions or offer opinions?

I really asked the wrong topic question because the "question" and it isn't even a question is:

If someone has a history of making comments as personal attacks on me, then I don't want them commenting or having anything to do with my photos. On other sites you can block people that harass you. I guess it would have been assumed to be unnecessary here. I can't block his comments but I can ignore them, and I can reverse his moves.

Where did this turn into needing images of every flower visited by every insect, thought that would be quite education to most, but probably not to those the most educated.

Also is there information that this invasive flower species is supporting insects that some other flower might? Seriously, how many natives in the last 2 years, in this area, have had that or a similar species shown on a native? Probably not many, as we've lost a ton of not only flowers at the proper time of the year for pollinators, but now non natives flowers the drought isn't destroying, are necessary, it might seem, for the species I'm still finding in nature (not in the cities, who are now on water restrictions.

You can extrapolate where an image showing a pollinator in a flower is detrimental to the group because the guide will then only be filled up with flower photos. You do not want images of more then the insect, I got that.

I am not new to this process. If it is useful for me to get a quick ID, which I got, then why should someone have to question that? I really doubt there are many people who on the whole crop their photos closer than I do. It would be already be deleted, if not for the fact that I am not liking having to be treated like a bad boy for taking an extra step to gain more information.

I've had a standing request for the last couple years for this editor to quit making insulting comments, and to stay away from my photos. He accused me of trying to lower bugguide's standards because I used made up name instead of my real name. So I changed it to my real name. Never mind that lots of people had to contact me to find my photos. I'm sorry I even asked the question. Certain editors love to criticize and love to frass photos as fast as they can. I don't need that. I don't mind constructive criticism but I'm not here to be insulted.

This isn't about informing me of rules. This is about working intelligently instead of creating a work load because someone can't see the difference between having a rule and using a rule to be an obstructionist. There is nothing wrong with what I am doing, except that now what I'm doing is wasting your time and mine for no good reason.

I get that you experience one of the editors as tactless, insensitive, and boneheaded. That message comes through very clearly. Okay. That's your perception, and I don't know how to fix either your perception or the editor.

I don't get why you want to use a plant photo linked to the other photos of the bug to get a plant ID. This information is missing. Does including the plant photo in the series of bug shots and frassing it later really save time and effort? I like to do things the most efficient way myself, I just don't see why you prefer having the wide shot in with the cropped bug shots.

Because I had someone reviewing some of my photos from a certain location already, so I threw out the question knowing that the person reviewing it knew the answer. I knew that because I had just got back from a guided plant walk on a federal land preserve, and he had told me the name but I forgot it.

So, knowing he reviews the photos I take on the plant walks I attend I knew he would see the comment, and answer the question. Then, as the plan went I would add the flower name to the insect name in the title, which I did. At that point I will have added a little piece of information that may or may not interest anyone, but what the heck, I felt like adding it. At that point, had I been left to my own devices I would have frassed (or deleted for that matter) the image.

So it seems logical to do this.

BTW, R.Berg, I have enjoyed your photos, especially since they are from the Bay Area. While it's amazing what you can find in your own back yard it is also how we are effected by microclimates and habitat changes that make areas only a few miles away vastly different. A lot of people are light years ahead of me in plant & ecosystem knowledge. I don't know what's going to prove of interest to someone and what is not. So if the information is available, why not add it?

You're question fair enough, and I hope I answered it. But my whole problem is why do frass-happy editors have to second guess every decision I make. I'm not an editor, but I certainly have enough experience that I don't think it's reasonable to others to assume I don't have any reason for what I'm doing. I think that cropping advice is best given to people who obviously don't know how or why to crop. I obviously know how to crop and why to crop.

"I had someone reviewing some of my photos from a certain location already, so I threw out the question knowing that the person reviewing it knew the answer. I knew that because I had just got back from a guided plant walk on a federal land preserve, and he had told me the name but I forgot it." This kind of situation is one reason that private messaging would improve BG by a mile. But it's also a good idea to take notes in the field.

"While it's amazing what you can find in your own back yard it is also how we are effected by microclimates and habitat changes that make areas only a few miles away vastly different." Human activity makes a difference. My back yard is highly "disturbed" land. It has a variety of host plants because we put in one of these, two of those, six of something else . . . and there are the seasonal vegetables.

I have not gone on these guided walks for very long. The first time I used a notebook and wrote down photo numbers and names of subjects. That was completely hopeless. I have some ideas for improvements. Yes PM's would do the job fine. Still, I would not rush to PM's if it meant loosing any of the functionality that site currently has. There are work arounds for no PM, but loss of the complex data structures and search features would be devistating!

Re- Human activity makes a difference. Yes! I am all for that! When I get around to it, I intend to plant my favorite bug attractors. I'd love to do another pond. I used to have a 2,000 gallon pond and it provided lots of interesting new insects. In addition you got to see how insects use the resources of mud and water, and see aquatic larvae leave their watery nest. The diversity never ends, even in the yard. But it is also interesting seeing waves of insects during their orderly procession in an established ecosystem!