Cryptogams

@Heino1

Helen,

I support that split. This is especially so, because mosses, liverworts-and hornworts are plants, and slime moulds are definitively not. The same goes for the enigmatic lichens,

Of course, it’s problematic when it comes to “algae”. While some algae are indeed plants, cynobacteria are not, though lumping them seems a good option because it’d be hard for non-biologists to decide where to put their sightings if this group was to be split along taxonomic lines.

Great idea. Can’t wait to find me some slime moulds having just listened to a podcast about clever they are!

I think this is a good idea Helen.
Yes the slime moulds are a fascinating group. I would like to see more of them myself. I do find they test the limitations of my camera phone.

Bryophytes no problem. Lichens maybe with fungi. Others in group miscellaneous? WHat does iNaturalist do? Makes sense to be consistent.

Thanks everyone, I see the drop-down more as a list of groups of species most people search for, rather than a strict hierarchy, but realise we can't split it up too much, otherwise the list gets too long. I realise Lichens are Fungi but I feel they're a distinct group. Personally I'd love to see Spiders as a separate group but I'd better not push the friendship :)

Hi @HelenCross - great initiative - always healthy to question and challenge the status quo - nothing is locked in concrete.

Category 1 changes are a big deal because they affect most areas within the platform, however the move and merge tools exist within the platform to fully support (and largely automate) such a change.

While we wouldn't want to split something like "Birds" into multiple level 1 categories as that sets a trend of having way too many level 1 categories, I think in the case you are proposing it makes sense and I fully support.

Having had a close encounter with a slime mould recently I support the split

Firstly, thank you to Helen for raising the question. Whilst I offer no opinion about the slime mould debate, I suggest that Helen's question raises a broader issue of the categories in the drop-down list and I note that Aaron has also raised this issue.
For example, should reptiles have their own category and be separated from amphibians? Ditto, other Invertebrates into several stand-alone groups. The list goes on....
Of course this all gets back to the 'lumpers and splitters' debate that has been wafting along for decades in the taxonomy/systematics world, but if the role of NatureMapr is to allow people to record specimen A at location B shouldn't we be making this as simple as possible? In the case of
the current "Reptiles and Amphibians' I'm confident that people know the difference between a snake and a frog, but what about the difference between a legless lizard and a snake? If lizards had their own drop-down box and snakes had their own category would it make it simpler to differentiate these groups?
So I support splitting groups when it makes it simpler for people to record their findings, and also support Aaron's comment that splitting birds would be cumbersome.

Thanks again everyone :) Heino is offline at the moment so I'm hoping to chat with him in person.

I realise now my spiders comment was erroneous as you can drill down to spiders off the Other Arthropods category, and likewise from the Reptiles and Frogs category you can drill down to the various reptiles. However slime moulds and algae & cyanobacteria don't yet have their own categories.

I'm now thinking the drop-downs could be:
* Lichens, mosses and other bryophytes (which drills down to Lichens and Bryophytes - mosses, hornworts and liverworts)
* Myxomycetes (slime moulds)
* Algae & cyanobacteria

This way if you want to look at just slime moulds, or algae & bacteria, you can see them as distinct groups.

Heino was happy with the split so it's done. You can now check out all the slime moulds or all the algae/cyanobacteria in the Canberra region, or all NatureMapr records (Australia). Happy viewing and spotting!

Thanks Helen