Identification through deduction

[Emdiesse]

You're out and you see this!

The classic 'SNAP!' method of identifying a species
I speak for myself here... but I am sure I speak for many others when I say we notice a plant, fungus animal that we want to learn more about and we crack out an id book and look for a similar looking picture and then that's it, we have identified our organism.

For example... using the 'SNAP!' way if you see a red mushroom with a stem and a load of white spots on the top you might go home and crack out the ol' mushroom books and find a picture and be able to say... OH... it's a Fly Agaric (It's Amanita muscaria)

The 'Sherlock' (Deduction) method...
However, whilst you are out in the field, if you know that the family Amanitacaea typically contains mushrooms with:

• (Usually) pale gills that are free from the stem
• Presence of a universal veil that usually creates a volva on the stem of mature specimens
• The caps are usually dry
• Many have a ring on the stem
• and some have spots on the cap
• many are poisonous, some deadly poisonous
• and I am sure there are many other distinguishing characteristics

Then you can use the 'Sherlock' way...

You notice the fungi has a volva at the base of it's stem and there is a ring around the stem too, the cap is spotty, there are gills and they are free from the stem and pale in colour... You deduce you are probably looking at a member of the Amanitacaea family... You recognise there fore it is probably poisonous.

Then you go home, crack out your book, check out the amanitas to find it and viola... a nice sense of satisfaction knowing you at least half identified it without your field guide (and you didn't eat it)!

So, why this post?
Firstly, I hope I can start accumulating useful information here for others to learn. Secondly, I'm a beginner, I'm growing ever more keen on being able to identify the flora, fauna and fungi I come across and I personally want to learn about the distinguishing characteristics of the most common families of organisms around the UK... but I notice there are possibly hundreds!

However, as you traverse up the taxonomical ranks into order, into class, into phylum and so on there is progressively less to learn. I think it's safe to say everybody here could probably classify a eukaryotic organism down to the kingdom (i.e. you know an animal is an animal, you know a plant is a plant and you know a fungus is a fungus)

but if you're still reading, like me, you might be interested in learning more about the Phylums the Classes and the Orders (as well as eventually the families) that organisms are placed within.

The proposition
So I have an ambitious proposition! Perhaps I could start making some nice tidy diagrams to put into plain english the 'typical' distinguishing features that organisms share within that particular taxonomical rank. However, here is the catch... I am a beginner who dreams too much and so I need to request the assistance of the BCUK team to help me compile these diagrams for all to use.

Here is a no where near complete example of what I hope to achieve It is a 'Class Diagram' (well, sort of). The basic idea is that the arrows show the direction of 'inheritance'. For example 'Life', that is all living organisms, all perform the functions listed in that 'Class' (Life). Then Eukarya (Another class) inherits the properties and functions of 'Life'. So on so forth.

So you see I have started already and what I would like to do is get this particular diagram finished first and then start with new diagrams starting from the phylums and listing all the classes of each phylum and the 'Distingushing characteristic and behaviours' of species classified within that rank.

I hope that is all clear.

So please, if you are keen on helping me create these diagrams, helping me learn and thus helping others learn with the diagrams then I look forward to your contributions
Otherwise, if you just want to sit back and view the finished products (if they get going) then equally, you are more than welcome to just observe.

If you see anything wrong... shout and I will try and correct it
Equally, if you think this is a MAD proposition that only a beginner would suggest, then please pre-warn me (Although, rome wasn't built in a day )

 

[Clouston98]

Interesting idea that I think could be a very useful resource but I would be no help I'm a beginner when it comes to fungi identification.

 

[Emdiesse]

Interesting idea that I think could be a very useful resource but I would be no help I'm a beginner when it comes to fungi identification.

Thanks for the interest

Also, I think I'll just make clear to all that I hope to get this rolling for plants and animals, as well as fungi.

 

[Harvestman]

Nice idea. I've had similar ideas, and started them in the past, but hit problems:

The tree gets enormously complex very quickly
Taxonomic disputes mean that some groups can be placed in several different places
Sadly nature does not fit into nice clean categories, however much we would like it to. So you end up with sub-families, super-phyla, infra-classes, and so on, which just confuse the issue further.
Many of the diagnostic characters are not field useable - dentition, microscopic characters, numbers of hairs, etc.

I'm not saying it can't be done. In fact, I'd love to see it done. I just think it is a lot more complicated than it might seem at first.

 

[Ahjno]

You should get yourself a copy of 'Botany in a day', by Thomas J. Elpel for the plant bit

 

[stuart f]

Hi Emdiesse, have you had a look at this book regarding plants, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Botany-Day-...qid=1377899412&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+j+elpel , it may help you on your quest for plant knowledge, and now its in colour. To me its worth its weight in gold.

Cheers Stuart.

 

[Emdiesse]

You should get yourself a copy of 'Botany in a day', by Thomas J. Elpel for the plant bit

Oh, I won't lie!

It's what gave me the idea... but then when I tried to make my post a little more interesting to read to try and drum up more interest i ended up dropping all the references because using my Fly Agaric mushroom example it didn't fit in with what I was saying anymore and I spent so long writing it out I couldn't be bothered to reference the idea. Also, I didn't want it to sound like a plug for his book... however looking back, i'm pretty certain it isn't

However, yeah, that is one cracking book

In my view, it's definitely a good method and a very logical method at that.

I figured it'd be nice to apply that method to everything else too in a nice easy to read way.

 

[Emdiesse]

Nice idea. I've had similar ideas, and started them in the past, but hit problems:

The tree gets enormously complex very quickly
Taxonomic disputes mean that some groups can be placed in several different places
Sadly nature does not fit into nice clean categories, however much we would like it to. So you end up with sub-families, super-phyla, infra-classes, and so on, which just confuse the issue further.
Many of the diagnostic characters are not field useable - dentition, microscopic characters, numbers of hairs, etc.

I'm not saying it can't be done. In fact, I'd love to see it done. I just think it is a lot more complicated than it might seem at first.

Thanks

I know you are right, however I can't help but want to try - even if it's just an aid to my own learning.

You are right though, and it'll be out of date every minute after I complete a diagram.

[edit]
Maybe that's the whole reason Elpel focus' on families... since when you get down to that level they seem to be more field applicable traits and characteristics
Perhaps it's be a nice exercise instead to focus on the major families of organisms in the UK to assist with some info for field identification.

As Elpel does in his book, but for animals and fungi also

Although... equally, they seem to be many branches of the tree where obvious characteristics can be observed.

For example, you know a spider is an animal, and it'll be a member of the Arachnids class.

Taking that infamous, of recent, Tegenaria spp then perhaps there are some 'field observable' characteristics that might help me recognise it's a part of the Araneae (Wikipedia ) order and the Agelenidae family (Wikipedia again )?
and equally, if I know some of the field observable traits, perhaps I might also be able to recognise that other spiders living in a funnel web are also possibly part of the same family as the Tegenaria (or I am sure many other families that may also weave funnel webs)

Perhaps we need a laymans tree for field identification... perhaps that is what I am after... forgetting about all the real science but being able to build up a tree of species based on easily observable traits or would that just make a mess of things for everybody
[/edit]

 

[nitrambur]

Reminds me of John Wilkins' work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_towards_a_Real_Character_and_a_Philosophical_Language

 

[Harvestman]

I was thinking about this for UK spiders. To family level it works, for most families anyway. In a lot of cases, identifications to family are close to species identifications, as there are very few examples of each family.

Let's see:
Spiders. Class: Arachnida, Order: Araneae

Families:
Sub-order: Orthognatha
Atypidae: Chelicerae articulate parallel to each other (as opposed to in opposition like in all other UK spiders).

Sub-order Labidognatha
Dysderiidae: six eyes in ring
Segestriidae: six eyes in 3 pairs, legs arranged so that 3 pairs point forwards, 1 pair points backwards
Pholcidae: six eyes, very long thin legs, always found indoors
Oonopidae: six eyes, never more than 2mm long, orange/pink colour
Scytodidae: six eyes, carapace really large and domed, carapace same size as abdomen, always found indoors

All other groups always have 8 eyes
Eresidae: 4 eyes on a tubercle, other four eyes at the corners of large square carapace. One very rare species.
Dictynidae: Small spiders, 4-5mm max length, make a web that clings close to the surface of plant
Amaurobiidae: Lace-web spiders, larger than Dictynids, make a scruffy 'lace doily' web around holes in walls and crevices on trees
Uloboridae: Highly distinctive eye pattern. Rare.
Clubionidae: Posterior spinnerets visible from above, largest spinnerets taper towards the tip
Gnaphosidae: Posterior spinnerets visible from above, largest spinnerets do not taper towards the tip and tend to diverge
Anyphaenidae: Buzzing spider. Tracheal spiracles midway between epigastric fold and spinnerets. Distinctive patter. just 1 species.
Liocranidae: resembles Clubonidae, but labium square (rectangular in Clubionidae) and eyes in a more compact group
Zoridae: Carapace characteristically pointed at front. Generally distinctive appearance
Zodariidae: Spinnerets on a tubercle beneath the abdomen
Thomisidae: Crab spiders. Front two leg pairs much larger than hind two, and rotated inwards
Phildromidae: Running crab spiders, but legs more similar than in true crab spiders
Sparassidae: Black eyes, ringed with white. Posterior row slightly procurved (curved forwards at the outer edges). One rare UK species, bright green
Salticidae: Jumping spiders. Anterior media eyes much larger than other eyes
Lycosidae: Wolf spiders. Posterior median eyes much larger than other eyes. Hind legs the longest.
Pisauridae: Carapace with a median central stripe (in genus Pisaura) or large black spiders on water (raft spiders)
Argyronetidae: Water spider. Very hairy, especially and last 2 leg pairs. Lives underwater.
Oxyopidae: Lynx spiders. Very spiny legs. Eyes in a hexagonal pattern. One rare species.
Agelenidae: Posterior spinnerets very long and clearly two-segmented, visible from above.
Hahniidae: All spinnerets in a row, outermost clearly two-segmented

The last eight families are very difficult to distinguish reliably without considerable experience.
Mimetidae: Legs 1 and 2 with large curves spines, metatarsi curved when viewed from the side
Nesticidae: Labium obviously swollen. otherwise like Theridiidae. One UK species, a house spider.
Theridiidae: Comb foot spiders. Not very hairy. Make a scruffy, tangled web. have a comb of spines on last legs but hard to see in the field
Theridiosomatidae: One very small, globular species, with distinctive appearance
Metidae: False orb weavers. Makes an orb web with a hole in the centre. Often included in Tetragnathidae, but chelicerae and maxillae less enlarged.
Tetragnathidae: Maxillae very long and projecting. Chelicerae very long and curved outwards. Legs usually very long. Make a loose orb web.
Araneidae: Orb weavers. Large, spiny, makes an orb web with centre filled in with silk
Linyphiidae: money spiders. Not usually spiny. Makes a sheet web which spider hangs beneath. Usually very small.

Notice how even writing a quick and simplistic guide, I still have to use terminology that may be incomprehensible to non-arachnologists, and which may have different meanings when applied to other groups such as insects.

You have set yourself a heck of a challenge

 

[Emdiesse]

Oh wow Harvestman, that is a cracking set of data!

That's fantastic!

I had no idea there were spiders with 6 eyes, I thought they always had 8
So we could say if you find a spider with 6 eyes it is of the 'Labidognatha' sub-order(equally, we might not be able to?), so even if I can't recognise the other traits for the individual families out in the field then perhaps at least if I ever happen upon a 6 eyed spider then I can assume that it might be from the 'Labidognatha' sub-order and then that can help me pinpoint the exact family and species when I get home.

Equally, of course, those assumptions could be completely wrong to so many levels and then I'll just have to pop over the the What's this bug thread for an expert to help me out or even do that anyway, but at least be able to fathom a guess up front

So, I know it's an ambitious challenge but I feel that this sort of information might really be of an assistance to the rest of us who want to at least try to perform to 'field identification' prior to seeking an expert evaluation.

I really appreciate you time here Harvest man, that's great.

I'm going to draw something up and post it here to see if this little wild idea is feasible, or at least might help me get to grips with the way species are classified and potentially help me in future to identify particular organisms more so than just being able to say... it's a spider!

 

[Emdiesse]

Since I am a programmer by profession I thought I'd have a look at the feasibility of making some type of collapsible 'tree of life' which includes laymen terms next to the scientific terms to help with trying to work out the family of a species and maybe even the species itself and it turns out my previous google-fus were not apt at all

Take a look at this:
http://tolweb.org/Arachnida/2536

has someone already made the 'tree of life' accessible to people like me!?

[edit]As I work down the list on that website I see that our friend the Tegenaria spider's family is not listed, shame. Also I have learnt the distinguishing characteristic of a Labidognatha as opposed to a Orthognatha is there fangs (as you called Chelicerae) face each other in a pincer fashion as opposed to pointing downwards. Again, I mean I feel I am learning something here and the whole idea is drawing me in further but first... I want to ask you, Harvestman, how did you learn all of these bugs? I mean did you work up from the species or down from the phylum or something completely different.

Because I now feel like I can walk up to a spider and say... hey, you are a Labidognatha because your fangs work like pincers!

Which again is facinating because when I think of a spider I automatically assume their fangs always pointed downwards parallel - I guess that's because the stereotypical spider does (i.e. the tarantula!)[/edit]

 

[Harvestman]

Ok, lots to respond to, so here goes.

The 'if it has less than 6 eyes it is Labidognatha' works in the UK, but not elsewhere. In fact, everything in my post applies only to the UK. It gets a LOT harder when you start looking for universal rules.

The reason I say Chelicerae rather than fangs is that the gang is just the pointy bit, not the base that it is attached to. The chelicerae are the whole thing. Much as in the same way that a crab claw is in two parts.

The other thing that chelicerae should not be called is jaws, since each can work independently, So, a beetle has jaws: when the mandible on the left moves, the one on the right moves in an identical way. Spiders can move each chelicera independently. So spiders do not have jaws.

Curious about your view of a stereotypical spider. I always wonder what the layman thinks of as typical, because it won't be what I see. Here's a mind-blowing fact: the 'stereotypical' spiders that you call tarantulas are all Orthognatha. However, the true Tarantula is a Mediterranean species of Lycosidae, which makes it a Labidognatha! The term tarantula became confused because it was used just to mean 'big fearsome looking spider' and was routinely mis-applied, until the name stuck to the wrong group of spiders.

How did I learn all this? Well, I'm 44, and I've been learning about spiders since I was 19 in university, when I was taught by a local spider expert. Since then I have diversified, but basically if you have interest and enough time you can learn anything, and I've been doing this 25 years.

Thanks for your comments, and I'm glad you are enthused about your project. Please be aware that my notes above on spiders are very rough and ready, subject to numerous exceptions and 'fuzzy cases', and only apply to UK species. I wouldn't know where to begin to do that even for European spiders, never mind globally.

 

[Harvestman]

Actually, here's a thought. For invertebrate groups like insects and so forth, it might be challenging enough just to be able to distinguish things to Orders. Families may well be being over-ambitious. Especially once you start looking at marine aquatic species.

 

[Emdiesse]

Thanks Harvestman. I'd assumed we were talking UK also since I've been scouring the web all this time getting lost through the many 'foreign' branches trying to interpret some of the things that have been said and to build upon my own understanding.

I guess my main ambition is to be able to at least attempt my own 'rough' identifications through reasoning my way down the tree. Especially if I am out in the woods and I spot something new I like to think that given time I will be able to know a reasonable amount to be able to at least make reasonable assumptions as to what some of the characteristics of the organism I have found could be... merely for my own satisfaction really.

One day, I hope given time I can contribute to a particular subject on this forum as many of our other members take the time to do so. In the meantime however I have SO much to learn

Cheers.

 

[hughtrimble]

Hi Emdiesse, have you had a look at this book regarding plants, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Botany-Day-...qid=1377899412&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+j+elpel , it may help you on your quest for plant knowledge, and now its in colour. To me its worth its weight in gold.

Cheers Stuart.

You should get yourself a copy of 'Botany in a day', by Thomas J. Elpel for the plant bit

I'm just about to buy this book, hence searching on here first - it really does look great and the author's video on the subject is both engaging and informative.

Has anyone tried out the card game? I can't find it for sale anywhere, but it looks like a great way to learn and be tested at the same time.