Is this breakdown needed? It's taking up a lot of space

no, I don't think we need it here

In getting people to try out different controls on the map, we are prompting them to think about (a) patterns of observation; what kinds of places are observed how is observation affected by different places; (b) and relations between what is observed (e.g. birds + trees + ??)?

As well as (c) how do different representations of observations affect our appreciation / understanding of them

the "magpie" problem - how to get a sense of "biodiversity" when all we can see is birds / magpies

discussion of bioregions as proxy for place was interesting; as was links to existing uses of bioregions on ALA. Suggestion to add IMCRA regions. Another thought about connecting observers to places: could we show how many observations/observers for each bioregion/place. e.g. colour the map as a heat map of observations. That would do some of the work of connecting people, place and living things.

could we include simple grouping in the table of plant, animal, insect, etc?

again, I think it'd be good to have kingdom level info, especially when common names aren't there. It's really hard to know what a ludwigia adscendens might be. A vine? a beetle? a bird?

something slightly confusing about using the map -- controls on the map set the area and controls below are about what is shown. I wonder if there is a way to connect the two aspects more