New Field added to B&FNP project
The ecological role of the Lepidoptera in pollination has been questioned. iNaturalist observations and other documentation demonstrates that pollen is transported by the Lepidoptera. The role of this taxa in pollination may be a variable one depending on both the species of host and vector. The role of the nectar flower may be of greater importance to the Lepidoptera then the host. I have noted that many if not most of the butterfly and moth observations demonstrate active nectoring by the presence of the proboscis inserted into the flower. In order to study the importance of nectar feeding in the Lepidoptera an observation field "Proboscis Inserted:" https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/9603 has been attached to the project. This observation field has been attached to the project Pollinator Associations. There it appears that nearly all of the Lepidoptera appear to be actively nectar feeding. The Apoidea appear to be actively nectar feeding but only about 10% clearly demonstrate a inserted mouth-part into the corolla.
The observation field "Proboscis Inserted:" is not a required field. It is being made available to observers that wish to document the active feeding in their observations. For observers wishing to document pollen attached to their observations I recommend the observation field "Pollen on insect" https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/6322. These fields are meant to be used as affirmative observations. There is no need to enter a "No" value if the feature is not observed.
Comments
My own view, FWIW, is that, if the butterfly's proboscis is unrolled and it's clear what flower it is approaching/leaving, that flower is a nectar plant for that species. If the proboscis is not even partly unrolled, the plant is a perch--"furniture" if you will, not food.
Nothing I have come across suggests that they use the proboscis for anything but drinking.
So if my butterfly appears to be nectaring in a cluster of flowers but I can't see that the proboscis is actually in the flower because it is blocked by another flower, should I mark it as proboscis extended?
@lappelbaum Although there may be different interpretations on when to apply a "yes" value to the field, it is my thought that a yes value states the observation shows mouth parts extended and inserted into the flower structure. "Extended" was added for observations where the proboscis is extended or unrolled but not inserted into the flower. The important consideration is to document an actual physical feeding connection. The presence of a butterfly or moth on a flowers is evidence of an ecological relationship, the state of the mouth is further evidence and defining of that relationship. The intent is to identify observations where the feature is observable in the photograph.
Add a Comment