Scioly.org

This points to the obvious, fundamental flaw in this event.

At a station, we are presented with a picture (usually) of a specific species and asked for detail that we have been told we don't need. For example, there's might be a picture of a Pseudemys spp. and we're asked their average size .

There are nine species and sub-species and they range from 20-45cm in CL, varying on source.

Some are insectivorous, most are omnivorous and another fraction are herbivores.

Eggs of this genus hatch in 30-150 days or can overwinter.

Clutches vary from 3-30 eggs. They are of IUCN Least Concern to Near Threatened.

What's a young herpetologist to do?

dvegadvol wrote:This points to the obvious, fundamental flaw in this event.

At a station, we are presented with a picture (usually) of a specific species and asked for detail that we have been told we don't need. For example, there's might be a picture of a Pseudemys spp. and we're asked their average size .

There are nine species and sub-species and they range from 20-45cm in CL, varying on source.

Some are insectivorous, most are omnivorous and another fraction are herbivores.

Eggs of this genus hatch in 30-150 days or can overwinter.

Clutches vary from 3-30 eggs. They are of IUCN Least Concern to Near Threatened.

What's a young herpetologist to do?

Look up information on all (or the most fundamental ones if there are like 40) species of course!

I really don't like that the list chooses genera instead of individual sppecies because each genera is somewhat diverse, but I guess it's to give you a somewhat broad look on herpetology.

Then the outcome completely depends upon the event supervisor in the end. Last year at UGA invitational, the ES selected fourteen genera from outside of North America, two that were introduced/invasive and one native to North America. Imagine what that must have been like for the contestants.

The whole competion then becomes a guessing game, based on which species are "fundamental" to the genus.

That's simply not science

dvegadvol wrote:Then the outcome completely depends upon the event supervisor in the end. Last year at UGA invitational, the ES selected fourteen genera from outside of North America, two that were introduced/invasive and one native to North America. Imagine what that must have been like for the contestants.

The whole competion then becomes a guessing game, based on which species are "fundamental" to the genus.

That's simply not science

I don't understand what you mean about fourteen genera outside of North America... surely they were on the list?

Anyway, some criteria for determining which species are most essential are the genus for which the genus was named/created, the most studied species of the genus, species with large distribution, species with especially urgent conservation status, historically cocerning species, etc.

Also, I recommend taking a quick look into as many species as you can of a species, adding pictures of them, getting a general overview of the genus, etc.

Amend to "Fourteen genera with species in North America and other areas, but all species were from outside North America." They were foreign species that they'd never seen much less studied. Sorry for the confusion.

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

dvegadvol wrote:Then the outcome completely depends upon the event supervisor in the end. Last year at UGA invitational, the ES selected fourteen genera from outside of North America, two that were introduced/invasive and one native to North America. Imagine what that must have been like for the contestants.

The whole competion then becomes a guessing game, based on which species are "fundamental" to the genus.

That's simply not science

I don't understand what you mean about fourteen genera outside of North America... surely they were on the list?

Anyway, some criteria for determining which species are most essential are the genus for which the genus was named/created, the most studied species of the genus, species with large distribution, species with especially urgent conservation status, historically cocerning species, etc.

Also, I recommend taking a quick look into as many species as you can of a species, adding pictures of them, getting a general overview of the genus, etc.

The UGA test from last year was notoriously bad - even worse than Nationals.

dvegadvol wrote:This points to the obvious, fundamental flaw in this event.

At a station, we are presented with a picture (usually) of a specific species and asked for detail that we have been told we don't need. For example, there's might be a picture of a Pseudemys spp. and we're asked their average size .

There are nine species and sub-species and they range from 20-45cm in CL, varying on source.

Some are insectivorous, most are omnivorous and another fraction are herbivores.

Eggs of this genus hatch in 30-150 days or can overwinter.

Clutches vary from 3-30 eggs. They are of IUCN Least Concern to Near Threatened.

What's a young herpetologist to do?

Its sometimes a shot in the dark depending on the proctor, some will have a range on the answer key to account for the discrepancies, while others who are not as experienced will have a hard number. In these cases I would often put down whatever was in the middle of the range or most commonly agreed upon by the resources I used.

Kyanite said:

Its sometimes a shot in the dark depending on the proctor, some will have a range on the answer key to account for the discrepancies, while others who are not as experienced will have a hard number. In these cases I would often put down whatever was in the middle of the range or most commonly agreed upon by the resources I used.

And I'll repeat: That is decidedly not science. It's more like "informed guessing".

dvegadvol wrote:Kyanite said:

Its sometimes a shot in the dark depending on the proctor, some will have a range on the answer key to account for the discrepancies, while others who are not as experienced will have a hard number. In these cases I would often put down whatever was in the middle of the range or most commonly agreed upon by the resources I used.

And I'll repeat: That is decidedly not science. It's more like "informed guessing".

Informed guessing is a useful skill. Ultimately, very few people in SO learn much actual science in the first place - the vast majority of teams are running on vague knowledge and guesswork.

Kyanite wrote:

dvegadvol wrote:This points to the obvious, fundamental flaw in this event.

At a station, we are presented with a picture (usually) of a specific species and asked for detail that we have been told we don't need. For example, there's might be a picture of a Pseudemys spp. and we're asked their average size .

There are nine species and sub-species and they range from 20-45cm in CL, varying on source.

Some are insectivorous, most are omnivorous and another fraction are herbivores.

Eggs of this genus hatch in 30-150 days or can overwinter.

Clutches vary from 3-30 eggs. They are of IUCN Least Concern to Near Threatened.

What's a young herpetologist to do?

Its sometimes a shot in the dark depending on the proctor, some will have a range on the answer key to account for the discrepancies, while others who are not as experienced will have a hard number. In these cases I would often put down whatever was in the middle of the range or most commonly agreed upon by the resources I used.

I cannot tell you how many different numbers there are between ADW, Peterson's, wikipedia, and SREL Herp. Usually what I do on the occasion that I grade or make a test is list all of the numbers and the sources. So long as the answer matches or is within the range of 1-2, I accept it. Herpetology isn't a consistent study, you don't always get perfect results, and researchers will report different findings (especially with the genuses).

Might just be me, but when it comes to herp I list ALL of the numbers I find for each genus, and I've still yet to get a question incorrect with this strat.

Ex.

Species A - 30-150
Species B - 25-140
Species C - 40 - 130