---

Nigel's post answering the original question put it extremely well - I wish I'd written it :p.

I am pleased to see Jere and others putting in a word for both IDing from photographs and for IDing in the field. So many experts discourage beginners from developing their skills in this direction with the blanket "you can't be certain of an ID from a photo or a live specimen in the field" and I don't think they quite realise how intimidating they can be with this attitude. There is often no acknowledgement that, actually, many species can be identified correctly under these circumstances, and the more you practice, the better your skills are. Both these approaches are a way in to a life long entomological interest for many very talented amateurs, and useful skills for those working in conservation and ecology who are not specialist taxonomists. This level of interest and expertise is to be encouraged, not scorned or belittled. Inevitably, some of those who start out in this way will want more knowledge and will take that step into collecting and all that it entails - and that should also be encouraged, of course.

Chris's point of view from running a recording scheme is understandable and valid though, and as someone who has just completed a qualification in biological recording and species identification, I have some insight into the way records can get skewed, or indeed, just turned into gobbledegook that is no use to anyone.

I think the important thing to encourage is the interest itself, and promulgate best practice at what ever level people choose to practice. It seems to me that this forum manages to do this superbly well. GlassOWater commented in one of his posts that he was impressed that there was a discussion, different opinions were freely expressed, and no one got flamed. He is right - that is a remarkable thing in online forums, and we must never take it for granted.