1 Chalcidoid Wasp at suppressed
Identification history
| Agamerion (Genus) | 9 May 2025 | DiBickers | ||
| Agamerion metallicum | 9 May 2025 | kasiaaus |
Identify this sighting
Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.
User's notes
About 5mm
12 comments
kasiaaus
wrote:
9 May 2025
Thanks @DiBickers but I wonder why you confirm things at a higher taxonomy level when we are pretty sure of the genus at least and most likely also species. I think when it shows up as confirmed other moderators will not look at it any more and it will stay identified only at superfamily level when it could have potentially been identified at the species level.
DiBickers
wrote:
9 May 2025
@kasiaaus Chalcid Wasps are a difficult bunch to get ID’d and I’m not comfortable ID’ing beyond my knowledge of certainty. I always try to add a suggestion so it remains in the unverified listing for others to see who have more experience. I don’t think there’s anyone else on here who can assist me I’m sorry☹️I’d rather the identification be true & correct. One thing you learn doing this, is the more you think you know, the more you realise you don’t (there’s too many lookalikes)🙃
kasiaaus
wrote:
9 May 2025
I understand @DiBickers but unfortunately the sighting is not unverified when you add another suggestion. Maybe it should be but I checked and it is not on the Unverified list. Maybe you should just put the higher level ID in a comment to leave the sighting in an unverified state.
DiBickers
wrote:
9 May 2025
@kasiaaus I’ve setup the Genus for this one for you. So, if the moderators don’t have a genus-level or species-level ID does it just sit there forever unidentified? There were quite a few insects I’ve identified since I started that had been sitting there for years?
kasiaaus
wrote:
9 May 2025
Thank you @DiBickers for all your moderator work. It is very much appreciated. In many cases it is the right thing to identify something at a higher taxonomy level particularly if has not been identified for a long time but when something is recent and has a species or genus suggestion it is probably better to wait to see if someone is able to confirm it. As I understand it, once it has a verified ID, it does not become unverified if there is a subsequent different suggestion. That means that moderators who look at unverified sightings will not see it. I think this behaviour is possibly not what it should be. I will pursue this further and see if this behaviour is what is intended. I can see an argument either way. Hmmm...
DiBickers
wrote:
10 May 2025
Same @kasiaaus… I can see both sides too (no answer, vs answer at higher level, vs potentially incorrect genus/species level which others use to compare their photos and have a snowball effect). When I assist in the entomology groups we always state our certainty, with a suggestion at genus or species, so I’ve followed suit on here not realising that when I do that it’s not going back to unverified. I thought a verified sighting would sit in the verified taxon, but the suggestion would also plonk it back into the unverified list (I didn’t realise it was one or the other). It’s a tricky one, I’m not new to identifications and have been doing it nearly 10yrs, but I am very green with the CNM processes. I feel it’s getting a bit too hard.
kasiaaus
wrote:
10 May 2025
Hi @DiBickers. Please don't let our discussion here discurrage you from moderating on NatureMapr. Your contribution is great. I agree fully that you should not confirm any ID that you are not sure about. When I said I could see an argument either way, it was to do with if a sighting should go back to Unverified when a new suggestion is made after a confirmed different suggestion. I am going to discuss it with @AaronClausen and see what he thinks. Thank you again for all your work.
AaronClausen
wrote:
11 May 2025
Thank you for the incredible moderation work and expertise you bring @DiBickers
Just to reinforce, the system is definitely not set in stone and even 13 years in we continue to learn and find opportunities to improvement. So please continue any suggestions and discussions around system improvement. We will look at this, but there is a bit going on at the moment, so can't promise a fast turnaround, but suggestions are always taken on board and often actioned if it makes sense.
Just to reinforce, the system is definitely not set in stone and even 13 years in we continue to learn and find opportunities to improvement. So please continue any suggestions and discussions around system improvement. We will look at this, but there is a bit going on at the moment, so can't promise a fast turnaround, but suggestions are always taken on board and often actioned if it makes sense.
DiBickers
wrote:
11 May 2025
@AaronClausen thankyou for the update. It wasn’t really a request to change anything on my behalf, more that I thought the platform was doing something that @kasiaaus has pointed out that it isn’t (though it would be good if it did).
I thought a Verified sighting would sit in the verified taxon, but if an additional Suggestion was added it would also plonk it back into the Unverified list (I didn’t realise it was one or the other).
So looks like I’ve now got a pile of Family-level or Genus-level ID’s Verified for you, but also have a pile of Genus-level or Species-level Suggestions sitting there that no one is going to see unless they go through the Field Guides like I have also been doing.
I’m so sorry, it looks like it was kind of a pointless endeavour based on an assumption of me doing what I thought was required which is obviously not the case.
I know now, so I guess I’ll just add commentary at higher taxonomic level with a suggestion in future & leave it Unverified.
Sorry to have mucked things up.
I thought a Verified sighting would sit in the verified taxon, but if an additional Suggestion was added it would also plonk it back into the Unverified list (I didn’t realise it was one or the other).
So looks like I’ve now got a pile of Family-level or Genus-level ID’s Verified for you, but also have a pile of Genus-level or Species-level Suggestions sitting there that no one is going to see unless they go through the Field Guides like I have also been doing.
I’m so sorry, it looks like it was kind of a pointless endeavour based on an assumption of me doing what I thought was required which is obviously not the case.
I know now, so I guess I’ll just add commentary at higher taxonomic level with a suggestion in future & leave it Unverified.
Sorry to have mucked things up.
Sighting information
- At least 1 Abundance
- kasiaaus Recorded by
-
Collections
kasiaaus NatureMapr Canberra & Southern Tablelands Latest Parasitic wasps (numerous families) Wasps (Hymenoptera, Apocrita) Insects
Additional information
- 5mm to 12mm Animal size
Species information
- Agamerion (Genus) Scientific name
- Chalcidoid Wasp Common name
- Unknown
- Unknown
- Non-invasive or negligible
- Machine learning
Record quality
- Images or audio
- More than one media file
- Verified by an expert moderator
- Nearby sighting(s) of same species
- GPS evidence of location
- Description
- Additional attributes
