Unable to manually add to existing mantas

In which Wildbook did the issue occur? Manta Matcher

What operating system were you using? (eg. MacOS 10.15.3) Mac OS 10.15.7

What web browser were you using? (eg. Chrome 79) Chrome 90

What is your role on the site? (admin, researcher, etc) Admin

What happened? The manta individual was identified through visual inspection as the algorithm did not pick up a pattern match, and when I tried to add to existing individual, it was not auto-populating the dropdown list of existing individuals.

What did you expect to happen? A dropdown list of existing individuals to show up when starting to type in the “add to existing individual” box.

What are some steps we could take to reproduce the issue? Try to manually match a manta to an existing individual.

Hi @FLManta,

Can you please provide a link and screenshot so we can better understand the context.

Also, which ID were you trying to assign the Encounter to?


Hi @jason,

A good example is encounter b23f3129-ef75-4f8f-a81e-08c592f28f5f We are trying to assign this individual to FL0063


Hi, @FLManta !
I’m seeing the same thing.
It’s being tracked internally under the ticket WB-1633.


Can you please set species on the Encounter and try again.


1 Like


So all of our mantas here in Florida are the potential third species which is why they’ve been set as “unknown”.

@AFlam suggested setting them all as birostris for now and noting that they’re the third species in the comments. Just wondering if we could add another species option for “Manta c.f. birostris" now to avoid having to change all the encounters again later?



OK, great info here. Thanks for that context.

As an alternative, we could add “Mobula sp” as a species, which would then allow matching at the genus level (birostris and alfredi results would appear with PIE) but preserve the fact that it is not specifically either. If we set “Manta c.f. birostris” explicitly as a species, you could only match strictly within that species. Would you want to match to the known species or just have a clustered subset of the potential third species?

We would like to be able to match them with the mantas in Mexico (Yucatan) and USA (Flower Gardens), since those individuals are also the potential third species. So whichever option would allow us to do so would be great!

Thanks, Jason!

OK, in this situation, please try this new species option:

This should keep these Encounters separate BUT allow you to match against both species since all three have the same genus. That said, this won’t solve the typeahead issue above, and once you match the individual, you still need to set the correct species on the Encounter before the typeahead will work.

1 Like

Ah okay thanks for explaining that, Jason. The main issue were worried about regarding this function is not being able to match new encounters to our existing individuals. So if we wanted the typehead to work for matching to individuals in Florida (and potentially Yucatan and Flower Gardens), we would have to create “Manta c.f. birostris” species label?

Hi Vicky,

I’m just seeing this one now. I think you’ll need to add all the Florida mantas to the new Mobula sp. category and ask the people managing the Yucatan and Flower Gardens to do the same (or have them under either of the manta species). Let me know if you’ve got this sorted, or you’re still working on it