Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Karpvähiline.jpg

File:Karpvähiline.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2024 at 14:58:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Subphylum : Crustacea (Crustaceans)
Info created & uploaded by Janeklass - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question The Genus and species are not known? I would like photographer to assure us that there are two appendages (?) on the right hand side as the image looks like there was movement and the same appendage is shown twice. I can't find any similar image to compare this with. Apologies if I am being sceptical. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I can't tell you the exact type. I'm just a photographer and I'm not a specialist who can determine the species.

It is possible to find similar pictures, for example here are some similar species: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-review-of-rice-field-ostracods-(Crustacea)-with-a-Smith-Zhai/a744116bb59f1ab740742b4ba1d6ab2a9dfc7d14/figure/1 Janeklass (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it can be one of Commons' finest if we don't know what it is. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most such images, the exact species is uncertain. It requires very specific knowledge and a thorough observation under the microscope. I am not a scientist and I have no such competence. I will try to find out in the microscopist community if anyone can at least determine the genus. If someone can tell me, I'll add it to the description. I don't have an answer at the moment. Janeklass (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The genus would be fine. In very many cases a species cannot be identified with a photo. Can you answer my query on the possible double appendage please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong there on the right. It's a natural part of him. Here is a similar species. In my picture, the character inside the box is just in a different position.

Look at this picture:

https://1drv.ms/i/s!ArkcQeKMeunHicAdsbybw4OaQIYktA?e=mUAcTN Janeklass (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before looking deeper at the picture, I just find the crop too large. Too much uninteresting black background -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easy to cut it, but to be honest, I don't see the need for it. Janeklass (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did crop the image a bit though. Janeklass (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be helpful, if there were some information, where this specimen comes from, where it was collected, where it lived. I think, without this information any attempt to determine the specimen is useless. --Llez (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This character comes from fresh water, caught from a lake in Estonia. We probably won't know what species it is based on the photo. No one in the microscopist community has been able to tell me this, and I've actually been in touch with one scientist who also owed me an answer. Even so, the photo is not useless. This fits very well with an article that describes ostracods more generally. Janeklass (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably a specimen of the dolerocypris genus. Janeklass (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand objections and reservations, but the photo is really good, far beyond the possibilities of many. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For my part, I don't think I would even consider featuring a photo of an unidentified creature. I realize that educational value is not always emphasized on FPC, but I think we do have to maintain some minimum standards of usefulness in photos of living things. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we go to some smaller insects and other similar creatures, then exact identification may only be possible based on genetics. I don't know if that is the case here, but for a stuff that small, ordinary approach may no longer work. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, the picture may be exploited for educational purposes indipendently from the identification of the species. Besides, the author of the work may not be able to identify the species, but someone else could in the future - in the aim of the collaborative projects that Commons and Wikipedia are. --Harlock81 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good reason for a feature, but Kruusamägi's remarks give me pause. In cases in which it's impossible to identify the genus by sight, wouldn't a higher-level taxonomic category be sufficient? But how would we determine when that's the case? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Kruusamägi and Harlock81. --Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]