The project Fish Watch Forum - Europe is now launched!
Dear fish lovers,
You are listed here because you recently posted some very interesting observations of marine fish on iNaturalist. In order to make better use of these observations, a group of fish enthusiasts and ichthyologists have created the Fish Watch Forum - Europe project. This project is an iNaturalist version of www.fish-watch.org created more than 10 years ago by Dr Patrick Louisy, which collects the metadata associated with important sightings: depth, habitats, sighting conditions, etc. Adding your observations to the FWF-Europe project is the best way to contribute to our knowledge of little-known fish species. Although we are particularly interested in species that are rarely seen in a given geographical area, or in sightings of unusual coloration, behaviour or habitat, please feel free to add to the project any fish observations you want. If you have any questions about the project or if you have difficulties in filling in the project fields, do not hesitate to ask.
Thank you very much in advance for your contribution.
Best regards
@solarboot-projekte @dennisthediver @slebris @pierrecorbrion @isea_org @stefadrian @nijntje51 @xrufray @pgirard @jpsilva @susannespider @arkantor @gmucientes @yvesbas @whodden @ctaklis @spela @josepvilanova @vmoser @tamsynmann @mazancourt @eliotthuguet @frahome @rinoiubatti @tiagojrc @lucaboscain @rumsais_blatrix @timcameron @mbernini @zanskar @soenkebonde @carmenbdelossantos @karimhaddad @joao_encarnacao @ericvandenberghe @bernatpescaire @tmenut @markyjacko @cyberoceans @project_manaia @stanvrem @lovelyclemmy @benoit_segerer @frederic-andre @mani_raab @ricardo_1 @v_s_ @patrick-louisy
The FWF-Europe team.
@esant , @rpillon , please continue you invaluable work of ID verification!!!
Comments
Good initiative! thanks for this project. Cheers
Hi, congratulations on the initiative! My observations may gladly be added to this project. Must I do something in that sense? Greetings!
Thanks @arkantor . In practice we cannot add your observations to the project because you will have to fill at least the field "depth" (if unknown, enter -1 as indicated in the description of the field). We do not know this information.
Note that you can batch add your observations to the project. See https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/adding-observations-to-a-traditional-project-wiki/13190
Thank you for inviting me to this project. I don't know if it is feasible or useful to you but I think it would be easier if you would add to your project the observations you find interesting with a default unknown depth and users can then update the depth when they see the notification of the observation being added to the project...
@frahome that is a good idea
That would be very useful, at least to me, as I many of my pictures are of common species that might not be of interest to the project and it would be cumbersome to add depth to all of them.
Nice initiative. Thanks for tagging me!
@frahome @rumsais_blatrix , actually if we add an observation to the project withouth filling all the fields, then you will have to retrieve and add manually all the missing fieds we created for the project; the list of fields will not appear spontaneously, contrary to the moment when an observation is added to the project. Thus if we find a particularly interesting observation from you, we will just addi a comment to ask you to add this observation.
... and me, too! Much apprechiated. I like the project!
@jujurenoult Are you interested in verified species only? Or do you care for "weird" observations, too, even if there has not been a consens on the species? My example is an observation of a Lepadogaster in the northern Adriatic: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/86781406 ... there has been a debate about L. purpurea vs. L. lepadogaster in the comment section. It turned out (as I am guessing you are aware of) that the differentiation between those two species is not unequivocal in some if not many cases, especially regarding their ocelli. So in a sense this might be a very interesting observation, since purpurea has or has not really been confirmed for the Adriatic? Another example: an observation hanging halfway between fallax and auratus adriatic morph?
Or do such observations miss the point of this project?
@stefadrian these observations are exactly what interests us! The only limitation is that the taxon needs to be included in the species list, which now contains only species, not genera or families. We have to add genera now. I have just added Lepadogaster and Gobius. So, please add these two observations to the project! If a genus is not included in the list yet, just ask us by tagging me or @xrufray in a comment. These observations are important especially because the Fish Watch Forum has worked with several experts for several years who are not on iNaturaslit, but we can contact them to give their opinion. In the case of Lepadogaster, for example, I will ask Samule Iglésias who is currently revising the taxnonomy of Gobiesoscidae, he may have an opinion based on his extensive expertise in differentating lepado and purpureus
Great, done!
Another thing: The descriptions of substrate or biocover are quite specialized. I know a sandy bottom if I see one, but all too often I cannot decide wether it is fine or coarse or muddy sand. Or I see alga cover about 2 cm high, but without identification it is not always easy to tell wether they are green or brown or red alga or a mix of them all. Maybe there should be more common descriptions to choose from, such as "sand" or "short alga" without the need for further specification?
One more: if the main underwater habitat are a lot of limestone overhangs and steep walls covered with numerous little holes to moderate caves ... how is that habitat called? Because in "my" area I have that a lot.
Thanks!
@stefadrian thanks for your comments. We will discuss these points at our next project manager's meeting.
Add a Comment