> Unless there are flaws in this approach?

I am not very confident in the correct identification of the specific bee
species, given the list of choices shown here:
http://greatbritishbeecount.co.uk/seen-a-bee.php

I would not call it a "flaw" as much as an inherent problem with using
untrained "civilians" who have no expertise in identifying a bee, moreso
when "on the wing".  Beekeepers would be only slightly better than random
citizens at this. Any beekeeper will see the flying motion of, or hear the
unique sound of their favorite six-legged creature, and be able to say with
certainty "that's a honey bee", or "that's either a bumblebee or a carpenter
bee", or "that's a wasp or a yellowjacket".  Everything else is going to get
categorized as "that's a... dunno... a solitary bee of sort sort...".

To narrow it down further is going to require some examination of the bee
"on flower".

Leafcutter bees (as opposed to mason bees) are going to be very hard to
distinguish, unless one is lucky enough to catch one while in possession of
either a leaf section or some mud.   The Rufas are fairly easy to identify
from color alone.  But the webpage with the drawings of the various bees of
interest in the study put an Andrena fulva right next to the Rufa, and did
not stress how "fat" and "round" Fulva will look, as opposed to the
sleeker-bodied Rufa.

Bugguide.net does a much better job of helping a neophyte to narrow down
which bug is which, as it allows one to narrow things down by gross
features.  The identification is always a matter of defining the features
that distinguish one species from another, so that one can rapidly compare.
To discriminate among choices requires clear and easy-to-recall "rules".

Photos would be nice, and allow experts (or image-recognition) to differ
between bees, but shutter delays on all but the most expensive digital
cameras make bee photography a skill that yields at best, sporadic success.

There are supposed to be 5400 species of bees known in the USA, and a
project at the American Museum of Natural History identified a total of 54
just within the city limits of New York City, so I wonder why there are so
few bees pictured on the website, as I assume that the UK has more than 10
species of bee.

Perhaps better to classify them more generally, i.e. solitary bees carrying
pollen either "on their belly", or "all over", solitary bees carrying mud or
plant materials, bumblebees (fuzzy butt) vs carpenter bees (hard shiny
butt), iridescent colored bees, and so on.  These types of observations
result in a much more useful dataset, as it admits that specific species
must be inferred from what has been reliably and easily observed.

So, to summarize, the data is going to be very noisy, and I don't see any
effort put into the triage that the observer can do to encourage a higher
signal-to-noise ratio.  This, (to me) seems to impy that this is more of a
PR/fundraising stunt than something that can result in actual published
data, call me a curmudgeon.

Yes, it "raises awareness", but in terms of doing tangible good in the field
of non-profits, "Raising Awareness is the Last Refuge of Scoundrels and
Con-Men".  (Go ahead and quote me, you likely know that donors need to learn
this.)


	

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html