Technically there already is a place to enter this which is the Occurence Status field, located in the same place as the Establishment means:
Presumably vagrant=irregular there. The definition listed in the help popup is ‘Presence unpredictable, including vagrants; may be common in some years and absent others’
Unfortunately this datapoint is not displayed anywhere outside the checklist entry itself, which is not the case for the establishment means.
That still leaves the question of what goes in the establishment means. Presumably then it is ‘native’ for vagrants since they are a natural occurence, but that just somehow just feels ‘off’, at least to me.
4 Likes
However, public display is important!
It can be seen by anyone who opens the list.
1 Like
I looked at Trichonephila edulis, a regular visitor to New Zealand from Australia that never seems to establish a breeding population. In iNaturalist the taxa is not showing any establishment means for New Zealand. In WSC it shows distribution as including New Zealand. Those two indications to me suggest it turns up here as a vagrant, but is not established.
https://inaturalist.nz/taxa/904337-Trichonephila-edulis
https://wsc.nmbe.ch/species/22442
The biggest issue I can think of for display is that to be meaningful, it really needs pretty detailed precise geo level data to show a true picture of a status on an observation.
As an example, in the province I live in Evening Grosbeak ( Hesperiphona vespertina ) would be classified provincially as a common bird. Where I live uncommon would be a truer definition.
Having a ‘common’ label attached to an observation in my home area is an imprecise value.
It is native through the whole province - easy to add, but its occurence varies, so lots to add.
It is displayed, just not in as many places as other data points.
Meaningful is the key here.
If I think about my own usage, I might look at an observation of a species that I don’t normally see (as an observer or identifier), and my question would be “is it possible that it could be that species”. I’m going to look at the taxa page for an establishment status (they are fairly well maintained for New Zealand) and I am going to look at any previous observations. In the case of the Trichonephila I mention above (let’s assume I’m encountering an observation of it for the first time), I would see no establishment means, but I would see a very small number of existing observations around the areas of New Zealand that would be likely for a ballooning vagrant. Checking WSC might show me that it includes New Zealand in the distribution (and again, WSC themselves state any distribution given is as a guide only, there is no possibility to categorically define a range unless you can track the location of every single individual!). Interrogating into the few observations that do exist, I would see conversations around the vagrant nature of their presence here, and that is another good reason to be adding value with comments to observations at every opportunity, especially for “unusual” observations. As long-standing and active members of iNaturalist, that is where we can really make a difference, by commenting on those observations that stand out as being atypical.
1 Like
But it is not a rarity, which is the topic of the discussion.
As I noted, it certainly is where I live. Ontario is a big place, over 1 million square kilometers. What is common in one part of the province can be a significant rarity elsewhere in the province.
1 Like
no, it is not the topic of the discussion. It is a feature request, and it’s title is 'Add a “vagrant” establishment means"… and I strongly believe vagrancy has nothing to do with establishment means
yes, but it is about vagrant status!
So, we could have an “out of range” or a “out of seasonal range” status.
It is not a vagrant in the whole province, but becomes vagrant as it is narrowed down won into counties and cities.
Maybe we can make them not auto-generated but curator-curated.
Otherwise, an unusual status, whether highcount or vagrant can be created.
Neither the occurrence status nor the establishment means are auto generated, both are manually entered.
2 Likes
Just out of naughtiness, let me add this wrinkle to the idea of “vagrant”. Some moths, like Mythimna unipuncta cannot survive a normal Canadian winter. Yet they show up in random groups every year, technically out of their range - are these vagrants, or are they migrants?
And I agree with @cmcheatle - some forms of life are common where I live, and some, which would be in range maps, are not.
2 Likes
But then what about places without a list?
They are migrants, as it is not unusual to spot them.
1 Like
no, they are vagrants, migrancy infers passing through/over a place in order to get to a different location as part of a normal seasonal pattern of breeding etc. These are not doing that.
2 Likes
