Everyone can see the coordinates unless the taxon is threatened.
Obscured
Public coordinates shown as a random point within 10KM of the true coordinates. True coordinates are only visible to you and the curators of projects to which you add the observation.
private
Coordinates completely hidden from public maps, true coordinates only visible to you and the curators of projects to which you add the observation. Observations with private coordinates will still be used to verify place check lists.
It seems more like a Pellenes to me, but only because I can't figure out which Habronattus it would be. If it's a female, it's too pretty for a Habronattus. If it's a male in the viridipes group in CA, it should have modified 3rd legs.
Yeah, well this is an important design difference between iNat and BugGuide: *I* don't know this is Phlegra hentzi, b/c none of you spider experts have told me why I should believe you! Habronattus remains *my* best guess until someone can explain why I'm wrong.
The AMEs are too small for Habronattus. If it was a female, it would be drab. If it was a male, it would have modified 3rd legs...like I said above. Often, the way to tell with a group as diverse is spiders is in the genitalia. You look at that, confirm, then look at colors and distribution and associate them all together. I know it isn't a Habronattus mostly because I've seen a lot of Habronattus from that area, and it doesn't look like any of the ones I've seen. All of the CA species are on the CA Habronattus page, and this thing isn't there. While it's great to think everyone can ID anything from a dorsal photo, and in this case with such striking markings that may be true, experts are still important for when you can't. Sometimes you won't be able to see the characters that are used for initial differentiation. For instance, in a key, to differentiate this from Pellenes/Habronattus, it has to do with the patella-tibia III being as long, longer or shorter than patella-tibia IV.
Ok, you've convinced me it's *not* Habronattus. Still not sure why it *is* Phlegra based on these photos, and am too tired to do a full BG comparison. Maybe tomorrow.
The data quality assessment is a summary of an observation's accuracy. All
observations start as "casual" grade, and achieve
"research" grade when
the iNat community agrees with the observer's ID, where an "agreeing"
identification is one that matches exactly or is of a child taxon of the
observer's ID. For example, if Scott says it's a mammal and Ken-ichi
says it's Homo sapiens, then Ken-ichi agrees with Scott.
the observation has a date
the observation is georeferenced (i.e. has lat/lon coordinates)
the observation has a photo
Observations will revert to "casual" grade if the above conditions aren't met or
the community agrees the location doesn't looks accurate (e.g. monkeys in the middle of the ocean, hippos in office buildings, etc.)
the community agrees the organism isn't wild/naturalized (e.g. captive or cultivated by humans or intelligent space aliens)
Comments & Identifications
It seems more like a Pellenes to me, but only because I can't figure out which Habronattus it would be. If it's a female, it's too pretty for a Habronattus. If it's a male in the viridipes group in CA, it should have modified 3rd legs.
You know how I know it's Phlegra hentzi? Because I found it (your exact images) ID'd on BugGuide!
Yeah, well this is an important design difference between iNat and BugGuide: *I* don't know this is Phlegra hentzi, b/c none of you spider experts have told me why I should believe you! Habronattus remains *my* best guess until someone can explain why I'm wrong.
The AMEs are too small for Habronattus. If it was a female, it would be drab. If it was a male, it would have modified 3rd legs...like I said above. Often, the way to tell with a group as diverse is spiders is in the genitalia. You look at that, confirm, then look at colors and distribution and associate them all together. I know it isn't a Habronattus mostly because I've seen a lot of Habronattus from that area, and it doesn't look like any of the ones I've seen. All of the CA species are on the CA Habronattus page, and this thing isn't there. While it's great to think everyone can ID anything from a dorsal photo, and in this case with such striking markings that may be true, experts are still important for when you can't. Sometimes you won't be able to see the characters that are used for initial differentiation. For instance, in a key, to differentiate this from Pellenes/Habronattus, it has to do with the patella-tibia III being as long, longer or shorter than patella-tibia IV.
Ok, you've convinced me it's *not* Habronattus. Still not sure why it *is* Phlegra based on these photos, and am too tired to do a full BG comparison. Maybe tomorrow.
http://www.rkwalton.com/salticids/Phlegra_hentzi.php might help
Add a comment
Add an identification