Home - NatureMapr Australia

Announcements

15 Apr 2025

Dear NatureMapr Moderator Community,We’re excited to share a new feature aimed at saving you time when providing constructive feedback to contributors.You’ll now see "Moderator Quick Response" buttons...

New priority species lists in the ACT

NatureMapr now receives more records in NSW than ACT

NatureMapr Data Collector 6.2.1 update

Critical nature positive infrastructure update

Discussion

KylieWaldon wrote:

3 min ago

Thanks Di. I thought there was only one. I will make sure I get side views as well in future. sorry. Kylie :)

Vespula (Genus)

WendyEM wrote:

10 min ago

https://bold-au.hobern.net/specimens.php?taxid=102521
https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/observations?taxon_id=355191

Elophila responsalis

WendyEM wrote:

24 min ago

not many shots of females on line.

Anthela phoenicias

WendyEM wrote:

39 min ago

Not P. bistrigula - reniform mark lacks the long 'tail' of that species. The closest match I can find in Moths of Victoria is P. sp(11)

Proteuxoa sp. (11) (MoV, Part 9)

DonFletcher wrote:

43 min ago

Hi @NathanaelC, I am not confident that I know the nature mapper policy on this but the basic idea is that it is photo-based and that every record is confirmed by a moderator (unlike most other wildlife atlas systems). As you say, they are common species. And Wombats are unmistakable. But people often try to record species from droppings alone and there are certainly mistakes being made with the identification of those. So if we moderators are allowed to verify records without photos, I suggest the minimum requirement would be a statement from the observer that they had had a good visual observation of the species in question.

@MichaelMulvaney for guidance

Vombatus ursinus