loopy30's Journal

This post is an update to an earlier post discussing the need for shareable images to use on Wikipedia (see Using iNaturalist Images on Wikipedia).

Currently, over 99.5% of all iNat observers have selected a default image license that is not compatible with use on Wikipedia.¹ At first glance, this sounds terrible, except that the remaining 0.5% represents over 13,700 users that collectively have observed just over half of all species ever submitted to iNaturalist.²

License types

Proportion of iNat users by image license type used:³
CC0        0.15%
CC-BY        0.28%
CC-BY-SA      0.06%
CC-BY-NC      52.32%
CC-BY-ND     0.01%
CC-BY-NC-SA    0.09%
CC-BY-NC-ND    0.09%
All rights reserved  47.00%

Notes
1. Users with a non-shareable image license type account for 2,907,808 out of the 2,921,571 total users, as of 03 January 2024. Does not account for some amount of duplication caused by some individual users having more than one image licence type among their observations. For example: 410 (2.9%) users with at least one shareable image changed on my request still have a default non-sharing license for all their other observations.
2. CC0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA observations covered 241,786 species out of 456,419 (53%) as of 03 January 2024.
3. As of 03 January 2024.

Search for unobserved taxa:

• &unobserved_by_user_id=loopy30

Search for all shareable image licenses

• photo_license=cc0,cc-by,cc-by-sa
• photo_license=CC0,CC-by,cc-by-sa,cc-by-nc,cc-by-nd,cc-by-nc-sa,cc-by-nc-nd

Link to webpage:
text
italic text

Search urls:
https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/search+urls

Tips & Tricks:
https://inaturalist.nz/pages/tips_tricks_nz

List of species observed ranked by total number of world-wide observations:
https://elias.pschernig.com/wildflower/leastobserved.html?user=loopy30

Having primarily used a string of UV LED "party lights" for my mothing activities over the past couple of years, I am now looking to upgrade my lights to ones that emit light more centred in the UV-A spectrum to better attract moths.

Most available LEDs that are advertised as UV lights only emit from 395-405nm, and these frequencies are actually near-UV, and not the optimum UV-A peak frequency of 365nm that is recommended to attract the widest variety of nocturnal insects (see research paper). Lights emitting at 365nm are not commonly found, but the realUV™ LED spotlight sold by Waveform Lighting (see website) appears to a good product. They are not cheap ($165 USD plus taxes), but they are rated to resist the morning dew or unexpected rain. LED strips are also available for about $110 USD (including 12V power supply), but would require some additional protection from the dampness/rain for outdoor use. I have chosen the combined 365/395nm LED strips on the Entoquip lights (see website) which cost about $100 USD plus taxes and shipping.

In addition to my sheets with the LED lights, I have also acquired a 365nm CFL bulb that I will use in a porch light fixture with a mesh laundry bag to make a UV-A moth trap. The sale of fluorescent bulbs has already been discontinued in Europe and are currently being phased out here in North America. In the near future, advances in LED lights will likely lead to the availability of a less expensive, more efficient, and brighter UV LED in the dedicated UV-A spectrum.

I will continue to use my older "party-lights" as a portable mothing kit to travel with (see Mothing Lights Part 1). Another inexpensive (but not completely waterproof) option is this lightbar (see ebay listing)

One day perhaps, I shall buy the best available UV light for mothing; the LepiLED offered by Dr. Gunnar Brehm (see website). However, at a cost of around €450 (plus import duty/customs fees) this is not likely to be happening anytime soon. Even more pricey is the EntoLED2 (see website) at €700.

Looking forward to spring and another season of mothing!

Loopy30