JungleDragon is a nature and wildlife community for photographers, travellers and anyone who loves nature. We're genuine, free, ad-free and beautiful.


Typhaeus typhoeus - Brood chambers Single brood chamber here:<br />
<figure class="photo"><a href="https://www.jungledragon.com/image/102503/typhaeus_typhoeus_-_brood_chamber.html" title="Typhaeus typhoeus - Brood chamber"><img src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.jungledragon.com/images/3043/102503_thumb.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=05GMT0V3GWVNE7GGM1R2&Expires=1623888010&Signature=Z20X2B4SVWiiyyGlZKJ5TUPXOY4%3D" width="200" height="114" alt="Typhaeus typhoeus - Brood chamber Overview of area with various brood chambers here:<br />
https://www.jungledragon.com/image/102502/typhaeus_typhoeus_-_brood_chambers.html<br />
Nearby adult female beetle:<br />
https://www.jungledragon.com/image/102501/typhaeus_typhoeus_-_female.html Brood chamber,Geotagged,Geotrupidae,Minotaur Beetle,Netherlands,Scarabaeoidea,Typhaeus,Typhaeus typhoeus,nl: Driehoornmestkever" /></a></figure><br />
Nearby adult female beetle:<br />
<figure class="photo"><a href="https://www.jungledragon.com/image/102501/typhaeus_typhoeus_-_female.html" title="Typhaeus typhoeus - Female"><img src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.jungledragon.com/images/3043/102501_thumb.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=05GMT0V3GWVNE7GGM1R2&Expires=1623888010&Signature=yFWcUoWxKTFPfgma00iZ24vxvzc%3D" width="200" height="114" alt="Typhaeus typhoeus - Female Nearby brood chambers:<br />
https://www.jungledragon.com/image/102502/typhaeus_typhoeus_-_brood_chambers.html<br />
https://www.jungledragon.com/image/102503/typhaeus_typhoeus_-_brood_chamber.html<br />
Typical habitat:<br />
https://www.jungledragon.com/image/102546/aekingerzand_-_kale_duinen.html Geotagged,Geotrupidae,Minotaur Beetle,Netherlands,Scarabaeoidea,Typhaeus,Typhaeus typhoeus,nl: Driehoornmestkever" /></a></figure> Brood chamber,Geotagged,Geotrupidae,Minotaur Beetle,Netherlands,Scarabaeoidea,Typhaeus,Typhaeus typhoeus,nl: Driehoornmestkever Click/tap to enlarge

    comments (8)

  1. To start, of course a great, valuable and educational photo.

    But I'm a bit torn based on past discussions where we decided that a habitat, scat, etc are not the species itself, therefore such photos should not be identified as a species.

    Yet they clearly are very related to the species and it would be useful to group them as such, that's the other perspective to the discussion.

    In any case I have to give at least the illusion of consistency, so there's 2 things we can do:

    1. Remove the IDs. This is consistent with the past.
    2. Change the policy to start allowing it.

    As discussed before, in the future I want to develop a way to make the above decision unneeded, but it will be a while before that day arrives.
    Posted 7 months ago
    1. Hi Ferdy, good point to bring this up. For starters: I don't feel very strongly about this issue, so in the end either choice would be fine with me.
      Personally, I would prefer option 2, as I think it is very useful to group clear secondary indicators for the presence of a species with the species itself, especially if helpful in ID. Habitat and scat are one thing and I can certainly see how "doubt" would come up with these, bet even these - if pertinent/typical for a species - do IMHO contribute to a better understanding of the species.
      For example I've always much admired the general idea behind the website "Ecology of Commanster" by James Lindsey:
      The idea to document every species on a page with its typical habitat(s), foodplant(s) or prey and maybe enemies to me is a friggin' excellent way to present a species. It's just a bit of a shame that many, many of the IDs are incorrect (which is _not_ criticism of Jim - it is quite impossible for one person to be able to ID all life forms) and that those IDs tend to get propagated over the net due to many people using the site for reference, but I'm straying...
      On topic: I think, in the end, it is very hard to draw a clear line as to what "is" a species. What about galls and mines, for instance? These are generally very recognizable for either one species or at least a genus or so, and often these are even the _one_ thing used as acceptable proof of a species in an area. But to be quite correct it is of course not really the species itself. Yet, if you look at biodiversity (photo)database sites, you will find that for gall-causing species the galls make up 90%+ of all records. And JD is no exception: 159gall 73galls
      Other examples could be the pattern of damage on leafs and such caused by feeding that can even be the one externally identifiable "character" between sister species, short of genital examination, or the shape of a web, larval case or other structure created by the species in a very typical way. Such as maybe even the larval case of your Coleophora ibipennella the other day:
      Coleophora sp., Loonse en Drunense Duinen, Netherlands Casebearer larvae in its pistol-like structure which perhaps mimics dung. Found on oak leaf. It looks very similar to the species posted by Arp earlier:<br />
https://www.jungledragon.com/image/79302/coleophora_ibipennella.html<br />
(discussion concerning ID with that image) Coleophora ibipennella,Europe,Loonse en Drunense Duinen,Netherlands,World

      Of course, that image doesn't really show the species either. The species is the larva inside the case, so to photograph that, you would need to open the case and probably cause harm to the larva by doing so. Yet the photo is an excellent document for the species, as this is how we perceive it in the field.
      The "stucture created" by digging in the photo above, IMHO is not essentially different from the larval case of a Coleophora or the web or cocoon of a spider, or the cocoon of a beetle, or the brood chamber of a bee or potter wasp or an ants nest or the nest of a bird, such as the nest of a swallow maybe. All these are "structures" created by the animal, with or without help of available environmental factors, that can be very telling of the presence of the animal or species and often even downright identifiable. And as such, again IMHO, a very useful or even important part of "documenting" a species.
      In fact, I decided to upload the two images of brood chambers, only after seeing a remark on those in the species description shown next to my image of the female, so I figured it would be nice to illustrate that on the species page as well :o)

      So, to summarize: Even JD itself is clearly not consistent in applying this policy and we should probably be un-identyfying all galls, mines, larval cases (if larva not showing), cocoons, nests and what have you.
      I'm not going to spend time on that, as I don't think it makes JD more useful (quite to the contrary, really), but if you wish to run with the policy as agreed upon before, than that is fine with me too.
      So, feel free to remove the ID on the these here photo's of the brood chambers of Typhaeus typhoeus, but please leave the tags in place as these enable us to find the images back indirectly.
      Cheers, Arp
      Posted 7 months ago, modified 7 months ago
      1. Galls are an excellent example where the species itself isn't really visible, yet somehow we still consider it the species. You could arbitrarily decide that at least the species is the main topic and directly in the scene, which is different from showing a nest, or scat with the species itself being full absent. But I agree it's a subjective discussion.

        Ultimately, definitely the goal is for JungleDragon to also show habitat, nests, etc...that's never a discussion, only how to catalog it, and specifically how to do so in the current system.

        There's 2 reasons the discussion is relevant at all:

        - Both at species and higher taxon level when browsing and searching, I imagine people expect to see the species, and not some scat (as an example). The scat could be a cover photo of a species record or even the cover photo of a higher order, and I don't think people will expect that. I admit this is mostly an issue with species where you have few or just one photo.

        - A more theoretic problem is that it distorts observation data. I'd say JD is too small for that currently, but should you ever want to do counts on the observations of a species, including non-species photo distorts such counts.

        As said, I will solve this in the future so that the discussion becomes irrelevant. For now, for the sake of consistency, I will remove the ID, hope you understand. I will of course leave the tags alone, so that is a great work-around. Without ID you can still use the species name as tags, so basic grouping remains possible.
        Posted 7 months ago, modified 7 months ago
        1. Hi Ferdy, as said before - all is well :o)
          Just for the sake of argument (or future changes) ...

          On the browsing issue:
          Even with only images of the "true" species identified, I often have the feeling that better choices could be made to pick suitable image to represent the species in the taxonomy browser. For instance, sometimes a non-descript egg or larva or some such might be showing where it would be much more telling for the person browsing the system if it were an adult. Of course I understand the perks of an automagic selection system, but sometimes I wish we could pin point one ore more "most suitable" images to represent a species or higher taxon in such overviews. Also, when using the system on a regular basis it can get "confusing" (or irritating?) that the images picked to link to the next level are changing. I have the same "issue" with my lists, when I try to find a list and the thumb has changed once again - somehow I suppose I'm far more "picture"-sensitive than text-sensitive. I can appreciate the choice to rotate all the nice images to represent such groupings, but it also has a draw back in recognition efficiency.

          On the data-integrity:
          I don't think this is much of an issue. A record of feeding damage or poo is also a valid record for the species (certainly if fresh). On most databases you can select if the observation concerns a nest, juvenile, adult or different identifier. Especially the life stage is important to record for faunistic reasons and likewise noting that it is a nest or scat or exuviae or whatever helps to put the record in perspective and decide how to use it, but it is still a valid record.
          Just some thoughts for future reference :o)
          Posted 7 months ago
          1. Good news on the browsing issue, the cover image for all of these...

            - species
            - higher taxa
            - lists

            ...I definitely plan to make select-able, 100% agree that this currently is not ideal.

            On data integrity, not decided yet on how to solve it, but one idea is to distinguish between primary species photos and supportive photos. This would also make uploading diagrams and such more fruitful.
            Posted 7 months ago
            1. One more reason to eagerly await the next software release :o)
              It would be excellent to have some mechanism for various associations such as food plant or host (also for parasites), habitat, "signs of occurence" etc.
              Best if it could even function in both directions - with a host plant getting a list of taxa associated with it and with an animal a list of host or food plants. Would need some database planning for sure.
              Always neat to have a wish-list to look forward too ;o)
              Posted 7 months ago
              1. Interactions between species are an intriguing idea. The biggest challenge is whom is to maintain it, if maintenance is manual.

                Yet here's something you may be interested, unless you already knew it:


                eol.org has something they call "attributes" that are part of a sub system called the TraitBank. If from the above page you continue clicking on the attributes link, you get this:


                As you can see, it's not just relations, also properties like weight, age, habitat info, etc. And as for the interactions, some are even visualized:


                They even have an API, so technically it would perhaps be possible to integrate some of it automatically.
                Posted 7 months ago
                1. Thanks for the links to EOL - I had not taken note of that data system previously. Very impressive and useful!
                  Would be great if we could import (some of) that for various purposes on JD (but should of course get permission first - database copyright and all that jazz).
                  As for (manual) maintenance on JD, part of that could be solved by maybe having a few fields to be offered for completion at upload, such as species, but also "association(s)", enabling/inviting the uploader to do some of the legwork at once.
                  Posted 7 months ago

Sign in or Join in order to comment.

No species identified

The species on this photo is not identified yet. When signed in, you can identify species on photos that you uploaded. If you have earned the social image editing capability, you can also identify species on photos uploaded by others.

View Pudding4brains's profile

By Pudding4brains

Public Domain
Uploaded Oct 4, 2020. Captured in Aekingerpad, 8426 SJ Appelscha, Netherlands.