This species gallery is a project I've created for myself to add some extra fulfillment to photographing animals. I'm fond of collecting things and numerical point systems, so it does the job quite well. Here's the gist of it:
The objective is to photograph as many animal species as possible, with more points for higher quality shots. Certain bonuses and penalties also affect the score. Only the highest-scoring shot of each species is kept, with some exceptions.
It is noteworthy that much personal judgement is involved in the process, as the photographer is responsible for the identification and scoring of each entry, and as such this project is in no way free from error. I do, however, strive to keep an unbiased eye when evaluating my collection.
Software is currently in the works; once stable, I will make it available to download for others to build their own collections.
Jump to:- Scoring system basics
- New photo entries
- Multiple entries for a single species
- Identification
- Animal artifacts
- "Special circumstances" bonus
- "Additional forms" bonus
- "Special individual" bonus
- "Unusual individual" bonus
- "Undescribed species" bonus
- Defining captivity
- Dead subjects
- Quality multiplier
- Multiple entries from a single photo
- Additional remarks
Scoring system basics
If an item has an asterisk after it, click to jump below for more information.
Base Points:
- 50 base points for an identified primary species photo.*
- Additional entries for a species get 35 base points.*
- Unidentified species get 35 base points.*
- Animal artifacts get 15 base points, 5 if unidentified. Multiplier does not apply to artifacts.*
Bonuses and Penalties:
These are added or subtracted from the base points. Multiple bonuses and/or penalties can apply to a single entry.
Bonuses
- +10 for special circumstance*
- +15 for additional forms in photo - doesn't apply if the additional form shown has its own entry*
- +20 for special individual*
- +25 for unusual individual* (doesn't apply to captives)
- +1,500 for a previously undescribed species*
- +2,500 for thought-to-be-extinct animal (when photo was taken)
- +5,000 for thought-to-be-mythical animal (when photo was taken) (... I like to cover all bases, okay?)
Penalties
Quality multiplier:*
After bonuses and penalties are applied to the base score, the multiplier is applied to determine the final score of the photo.
- x1 - Barely in photo (obscured or cut off); possibly not identifiable from photo
- x1.4 - There, but barely recognizable (small, blurry)
- x2 - Passable (You can tell what it is, but it's not necessarily good)
- x4 - Good (Overall quite nice, but not perfect)
- x7 - Great (Pretty darn good)
- x10 - Omgwow ("A little bit of pee came out")
Detailed Rulebook
New photo entries
Although adding new entries may be the most basic part of this project, I feel that it deserves some clarification. Adding a new and familiar species to the collection is fairly straightforward; however, the addition of an unidentified species has the potential for some problems.
In cases where a photo does not allow for the likely future identification of a subject, it can remain as a placeholder indefinitely. But if a new photo is taken of a subject that could potentially be mistaken (or correctly placed) as the same species as the unidentified, and passes the unidentified photo in score, the new photo replaces the former unidentified photo. For example: If I photographed a white tern from a distance, but was unable to make out the species, I could enter it as an unidentified species until I photographed a higher-scoring, similar-looking tern (identified or not). In this fashion, unwarranted multiple entries are avoided.
Another scenario worth mentioning is that of same-scoring photos of a same species. In instances where this occurs, the collector may decide which to keep as the entry photo.
Multiple entries for a single species
Typically, each species will have only a single entry. However, there are a handful of cases in which multiple entries may be added for a single species. Cases in which this may apply are where a species exhibits sexual dimorphism (the males and females are notably different), different growth stages (eggs, larvae, pupae and adults, nymph stages, or simply young that are substantially different from the adult in a particular way (such as the spotted coat of a fawn in contrast with the dull brown of an adult deer)), different color phases (breeding vs. nonbreeding plumage, winter vs. summer coat, etc.), breeds, colors, or described subspecies. For butterflies and moths, entries may be submitted of both the upper- and underside of the wings. Any subject that is eligible for the "unusual individual" bonus (and even captive ones that match the description) may be classified as another entry for that species.
When considering whether or not a photo merits its own entry, it may be helpful to consider the difference in terms of words; if the difference can be easily described verbally or has a name, it might be suitable for its own entry. Additionally, if during the identification process the photographer was unsure of the species of the subject, despite having photographed the same species previously, this may serve as a good indicator of the entry's worth to the collection.
The inclusion of multiple species entries serves the purpose of providing a more complete documentation of the varity within a species while educating the photographer. Indeed, one of my primary interests in this project is the educational aspect; every subject I identify becomes a badge of the knowledge gained from this project.
Identification
It is important to note that in the context of this project, "identification" refers to a species-level identification. Any entries identified only to genus or higher are considered "unidentified."
Identification is a tricky issue. It can at times be impossible to know for sure whether or not an identification given is correct or not. So when is an entry considered "identified"? I usually draw the line after having found images of a similar individual from somewhat reliable sources, then compare closely related animals to see if any resemble it more closely. If nothing else approaches the subject in terms of physical likeness, it's a good bet that the identification is correct. However, some subjects cannot be identified from photographs. Flies are a good example of this problem; many species of the order Diptera can be identified only by dissection and microscopic examination of the genitilia! I personally do not have the equipment or the necessary information to distinguish between such species even in cases where I have captured the specimen. Therefore, entries such as these are likely to remain unidentified.
Further muddying the issue are those rare yet troublesome hybrids. Some species of duck are known to hybridize on occasion, and the resulting offspring can be nearly impossible to identify. I have not yet encountered this problem myself and have thus not thought much about what to do in such a situation. Perhaps the best solution is simply to place it with one of its parent species (as best as can be guessed) as an additional entry with a "special individual" bonus.
Finally, I should note that the taxonomic classification of species is anything but set in stone. Entire families are moved to new orders with the advent of new DNA evidence, and some species are of unknown placement to begin with. I try to keep my sorting as accurate and recent as possible, but it is likely that there will always be room for debate.
Resources
For any others who may wish to undertake this project, I highly reccomend BugGuide for the identification of North American insects and their kin - it has proved to be an invaluable resource not only in my undertaking of this project, but also in insect collecting. For the identification of North American birds, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology's All About Birds is an extremely helpful site. They also host a separate site for Neotropic birds here.
Animal artifacts
Animal artifacts are non-animal objects or constructs that give further insight into the natural history of a species or assist in educating about that species. Examples include shells, hives, nests, shed exoskeletons, webs, eggsacs, and footprints. I personally have opted out of including waste in this category, if for no other reason than to prevent myself from always feeling obligated to take pictures of animal feces everywhere I go. If one would wish to include them in their collection, however, they would be placed in this category.
"Special circumstances" bonus
Like many of the criteria in this scoring process, this bonus is somewhat subjective. Instances of a "special circumstance" include courting, feeding and catching prey. However, the purpose of this bonus is to reward the photographer for capturing a situation or behavior that they are less likely to encounter than not, and as such, what qualifies as a special circumstance for one species may not necessarily for another. For example, while it may be relatively uncommon to see a heron as it catches a fish, it is very common to see sandpipers sifting through the sand for tiny pieces of food. In cases like these, it is up to the photographer to determine whether or not the behavior captured constitutes a special circumstance.
"Additional forms" bonus
This bonus is, for the most part, unecessary, but available nonethelesss for certain cases of laziness. In any photo in which two subjects of the same species merit their own entry (for example, a male and female banana spider), the photo may be submitted as a single entry, but one of the subjects must be selected as the primary subject. In the previous example, then, the photo would be defined as that of the male OR female spider. In order to receive credit for capturing both forms, then, the bonus may be applied. The bonus is invalidated, however, if a second entry is added for the other form present in the photo. The need for this bonus can be eliminated immediately from the start, as is explained further here.
"Special individual" bonus
This bonus applies to photos of known or "famous" subjects, or subjects that are particularly remarkable for some reason. Examples include Punxsutawney Phil, the largest or oldest known member of a species, and Mert!
"Unusual individual" bonus
This bonus is granted to photos whose subjects have an atypical or rare coloration or mutation of some kind, such as albinism, or other physical differences. Photos with subjects that have artificially selected attributes do not receive this bonus, such as an all-red African grey parrot bred from other red factor individuals to increase the anomoly, nor do photos of injured animals. This bonus also does not apply to photos of captive animals - however, those that would otherwise be eligible for the bonus merit a separate entry.
"Undescribed species" bonus
This bonus applies only to photos that initiate or play an important role in the process of a species being newly described to science, a situation that is not unknown regarding internet photos.
Defining captivity
Captivity is especially difficult to define. In the past, I have been as strict as to consider manipulating an animal in any way to render upon it a "captive" status. After much thought, however, I have settled on a more lenient definition that upholds the original purpose of this penalty: to create greater incentive for the seeking and finding of animals in their natural setting.
As such, photos of animals encountered in enclosures away from their natural habitat will receive this penalty. However, photos of animals relocated within a reasonable enough distance to still be considered within their range are not penalized. In contrast, domestic and/or tamed animals that enter the home, whether or not they are free to come and go as they please, are considered captive. This is obviously subjected to the knowledge of the collector; one's own cat will always be counted as captive, but a stray or unfamiliar cat photographed may be counted as "wild."
To compare several other examples: moving a caterpillar to a more photogenic leaf, according to this definition of captivity, will not affect its "wild" status (although I encourage keeping animals on their host plants, as the presence of such information can better illustrate the natural history of that species). Under this definition, even relocating a snake from the yard to another part of the neighborhood would not affect the snake's status as a wild animal. Other instances may be more ambiguous, and as is so often the case in this project, the collector simply must decide with gut feelings whether or not to count the subject as wild or captive.
Dead subjects
While submitting photos of dead subjects is permissible (at the cost of a heavy penalty), I feel that I should establish certain standards. As one of the major purposes of this project is to learn from and share information via these photos, it is important that each entry conveys sufficient information about the natural history of the species represented. Thus, fried chicken is obviously not an acceptable entry for Gallus gallus domesticus, but if you happen to see a dead rooster lying around, it will suffice. Most animals that have died in a relatively natural manner (that includes roadkill!) are acceptable, assuming they are relatively recognizable from the remains, while crushed insects, for example, have little to no value as far as educating one about that animal, and thus are not an acceptable entry.
It gets a little harder to draw the line with "treated" animals. As mentioned previously, cooked animals are not acceptable, unless the animal is largely intact and recognizable (such as a suckling pig). Insects that have been arranged for display are acceptable, but in cases where human craftsmanship is especially influential to the appearence of the specimen (such as traditional taxidermy), that specimen cannot serve as an entry subject.
Quality multiplier
This multiplier is used to gauge the aesthetic level of the photo. It is also one of the most subjective scoring elements involved in this project. When applying this multiplier, the relative skill of the photographer is to be considered. It may be helpful to adjust scores after time if overall skill and standards have improved.
Multiple entries from a single photo
If a single photo contains two or more species or other entries, that photo may be reused multiple times. However, it should be saved as a new entry, so that it may serve as a placeholder for when that entry may be replaced with another photo. In other words, if a collection contains a single photo of three species, that photo should be listed as 0001, 0002 and 0003, with the corresponding data for each entry. Cropping photos is permissible.
Additional remarks
As is evidenced by the previous wall of text, I aim to be thorough and cover every possbile entry with these rules. However, it is entirely possible that I have neglected to address certain scenarios, or that some good ideas simply have eluded me. Feel free to contact me if you have any suggestions for revisions to these rules.