sábado, 16 de septiembre de 2023

1,000,000 iNat observations from Ukraine: summary and some stats

On 16.09.2023 we reached 1,000,000 iNat observations from Ukraine (including “casuals”), so I think it’s worth to highlight it and to make a small summary.

За цим лінком автоматичний куций гугл переклад даної сторінки українською.

Official celebrations of the round numbers by the iNat team only consider non-"casual" observations. However, within our Ukrainian segment, among the top 10 most active users, there are 3 botanists from our central botanical garden, who have accumulated a lot of nice observations on the distribution of cultivated plants. So most of our “casual” observations are rather valuable. And it’s just interesting to analyse it with “casuals”.

The observation numbered 1,000,000 was some of a large series upload by @alexander_baransky, perhaps this one (although its position will change after some observations will be deleted).

Among the 1,000,000 observations 944,192, 94%, are non-“casual” (comparing to 90% worldwide on iNat). Among “casual” observations 48,091 (5% from all) are marked as captive/cultivated. 681,173 observations, 68%, are “research grade” (62% worldwide, 67% Europe). 803,299 observations among non-“casuals”, 80% from all, are on the level of species or better (77% worldwide, 81% Europe).

Ukraine ranks approximately 21st globally among all countries on iNat by the number of observations (0.6% from all iNat observations). For comparison the top countries are US (78 millions), Canada (12M), Mexico (6M) and Australia (6M); in Europe (33M) – UK (4M), France (3M), Germany (3M), Spain (2M) and Italy (2M).

Our one million observations were made by 10,304 users (0.3% from all observers on iNat), among them only 8,451 uploaded any non-“casual” observations. It’s 97 observations per observer in average (49 worldwide, 47 Europe). The most observations were uploaded by @alexander_baransky, 56,797 (5.7% from all Ukrainian observations). 33% observations were uploaded by top 10 users (by number of observations). 17 users uploaded over 10,000 observations from Ukraine, 115 – over 1,000 (including “casuals”). Over the last few months, around 1,200 observations from Ukraine have been uploaded daily by about 100 users.

In Ukraine only about 1 in 4,000 people have ever used iNat (c. 0.025% of the population), whereas in the US it’s about 1 in 200 (c. 0.5% of the population), so we clearly have some potential for growth.

By the current identifications the 1,000,000 observations from Ukraine represent 18,379 species (including many cultivated/captive). Non-“casual” observations represent 15,683 species, “research grade” – 11,487 species. “Cultivated/captive” observations alone represent 4,502 species (numbers will change with future IDs).

Considering that around 60,000 eukaryotic species are estimated to naturally inhabit Ukraine, our iNaturalist data covers more than a quarter (c. 26%) of these species. I think this is pretty solid considering that many species require microscopic or anatomical analysis for identification.

Two users observed over 4,000 species (including many cultivated/captive) in the first 1,000,000 observations from Ukraine, 4 users – over 3,000 species, 15 users – over 2,000 species and 47 users – over 1,000 species (with species-level identification or better).

Top 10 users by the number of species observed in the first 1,000,000 observations from Ukraine (with ID at species level or better), including “casuals”, with other stats (some numbers will change because of the future IDs and deleted observations).

No Observer Species - all Species - non-casual Species - RG Species - captive Observations (all) IDs
1 @oleksandr_shynder 4,386 2,989 2,449 2,045 23,541 4,739
2 @igor117 4,303 3,553 2,470 827 24,841 10,815
3 @yuri_bengus 3,619 2,977 2,456 787 10,110 127
4 @aleksandr_levon 3,137 2,427 2,203 955 27,747 641
5 @vasyliuk1 2,935 2,895 2,349 56 21,968 1,252
6 @davydovbotany 2,899 2,885 2,675 22 24,326 172,292
7 @liubov_ilminska 2,756 2,734 2,151 22 7,892 159
8 @svetlana-bogdanovich 2,716 2,672 2,364 101 54,329 26,771
9 @alexander_baransky 2,697 2,448 2,105 481 56,797 25,092
10 @sergey_d 2,690 2,681 2,338 8 18,728 6,311

9,986 users have contributed to the identification of the first 1,000,000 observations from Ukraine by now. The top identifiers with over 20,000 IDs are @davydovbotany (172,292 - vascular plants and all-around), @kharkovbut (40,053 - Lepidoptera and Odonata), @sotnik_on (37,844 - Coleoptera and insects all-around), @igor_olshanskyi (33,461 - vascular plants), @svetlana-bogdanovich (26,771 - Crimean vascular plants and Crimea all-around), @alexander_baransky (25,092 - vascular plants), @roman-evseev (24,624 - all-around), @churilovam (24,297 - vascular plants). There are no foreign identifiers in our top 10, several in top 20. Other identifiers from Ukraine who have significantly contributed to identifying specific groups, at least from my point of view, include (but are not limited to) @valeriidarmostuk (lichens), @sergey_d (Lepidoptera), @petro_hryniuk and @olexandr_ghryb (birds, especially by the voices), @mikhailrusin (rodents, shrews and mammals all-around), @maxstereo (ichneumonid wasps and all-around), @sphex (crabronid wasps and animals all-around), @odonataly (Odonata and insects all-around), @filantus and @gansucha (spiders), @yuliyakutsokon and @yurij_ivancea (fishes), @gural-sverlova (terrestrial molluscs), @mikhail46 (aquatic molluscs and crustaceans), @katerina_kashirina (Crimean vascular plants), @georgebondarenko (vascular plants), @nerruslan (Coleoptera), @viktor_yep (Lepidoptera), @makitpa (myriapods), @oleh_prylutskyi (“higher” fungi). Many thanks to them and to others who have contributed to the identification!

The first observation from Ukraine was uploaded on iNat in August 2012 (iNat started in 2008), one of a bobak marmot, Marmota bobak, by @serggrek.

By the end of 2015 there were only 252 observations of 142 species by 14 users from Ukraine with @serhiypopoff dominating (102/71).

Stats for Ukraine by the end of each year since 2016 (by uploading dates; numbers were not the same at those years because there were fewer IDs and some stuff was deleted, as well as some numbers will change because of the future IDs and deleted observations).

Year Observations (all) Species - all Species - non-casual Observers Top observer by observations Top observer by species - all Top observer by species - non-casual
2016 303 172 146 23 @serhiypopoff (113) @serhiypopoff (75) @serhiypopoff (75)
2017 866 500 463 77 @missnarjess (295) @missnarjess (169) @missnarjess (168)
2018 8,260 2,639 2,370 796 @efarilis (3,333) @efarilis (948) @efarilis (945)
2019 39,581 5,212 4,622 1,984 @efarilis (7,133) @efarilis (1,336) @efarilis (1,332)
2020 181,456 9,752 8,893 4,194 @katerina_kashirina (13,457) @sergey_d (2,078) @sergey_d (2,068)
2021 448,105 13,046 11,613 7,220 @svetlana-bogdanovich (27,184) @sergey_d (2,332) @sergey_d (2,323)
2022 729,647 16,149 13,920 8,998 @svetlana-bogdanovich (43,841) @oleksandr_shynder (3,676) @yuri_bengus (2,858)
now 1,000,367 18,379 15,683 10,304 @alexander_baransky (56,797) @oleksandr_shynder (4,386) @igor117 (3,553)

During 2021 iNaturalist was translated into Ukrainian. It was initiated and supported from a project of @mikhailrusin, interface and some texts on the website were translated by @yatsuk_iryna and @oleh_prylutskyi. Many Ukrainian taxa names were accumulated by @valeriidarmostuk, @davydovbotany, @vitalii_1984, @yuliyakutsokon, @oleksandr_zinenko, myself and others (these were automatically uploaded from Excel tables by the iNat team in 2021). Both before and after that, many users have manually added numerous Ukrainian species names, as well as improved and deepened the website's translation. Much work still remains, particularly concerning Ukrainian taxa names. This is very significant, even for many Ukrainians proficient in English, as a substantial part of the interest in using iNat lies in learning the local names of the species we encounter.

The most significant iNat events in Ukraine were probably “Independence Day of Ukraine 2022”, “World Bioblitz in support of Ukraine 2023”, “City Nature Challenge 2023 Ukraine”, “City Nature Challenge 2023 Kyiv” organized by @odonataly, as well as “Ukrainian Winter Bioblitz 2022/2023” and “Ukrainian Summer Bioblitz 2021” organized by @davydovbotany.

iNaturalist is used in the educational process in several institutions of Ukraine, including our top Kyiv University, where @odonataly has widely implemented it for student’s zoological practice and even published a nice methodological guide on it (2022).

Another nice text in Ukrainian is these instructions on how to use iNat by @oleh_prylutskyi with @davydovbotany (2020).

Starting from 2023 we also have a Telegram chat, “iNaturalist UKR”, for discussing iNat in Ukrainian, it’s managed by @odonataly. There are some interesting guidelines and suggestions. Btw, my suggestions on how to photograph molluscs for iNat were initially posted there (it was idea of @odonataly to write them), but later I’ve posted updated illustrated versions on the iNat journal, in English and Ukrainian.

7 observations from Ukraine were chosen as “iNat Observation of the Day” (0.2% from all of them).

The 10 most observed species in 1,000,0000 observations from Ukraine are common mistletoe, Viscum album (6,363, plant); common oak, Quercus robur (3,739, plant); greater celandine, Chelidonium majus (3,040, plant); common sunburst lichen, Xanthoria parietina (2,763, lichen); boxelder maple, Acer negundo (2,708, plant); annual fleabane, Erigeron annuus (2,419, plant); harlequin lady beetle, Harmonia axyridis (2,400, insect); common nettle, Urtica dioica (2,179, plant); common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia (2,171, plant); Scots pine, Pinus sylvestris (2,081, plant). It’s rather abnormal, except the harlequin lady beetle, in most of the other countries and worldwide the birds are dominating (with some most noticeable insects). So our plantwatchers defeated the birdwatchers. It’s also notable that 4 of these 10 species are invasive in Ukraine.

Some stats by the selected taxonomical groups from 1,000,000 Ukrainian observations. “ID rates” are indicated for the non-“casuals” and compared with Austria, Germany and France, as European countries in similar latitudes with rather good stats on iNat, and with Europe in general (some numbers will change because of the future IDs and deleted observations).

Taxa Observations (all) % from a million Species - all Species - non-casual % of this group’s species estimated for Ukraine (c.), non-casual % of all species on iNat from Ukraine, non-casual % of RG - Ukraine % of RG - Austria % of RG - Germany % of RG - France % of RG - Europe
all 1,000,367 100% 18,379 15,683 26% 100% 68% 66% 67% 64% 67%
all plants 614,514 61% 6,913 4,861 ? 31% 76% 75% 68% 59% 67%
- mosses 6,981 0.7% 178 174 25% 1% 37% 47% 51% 44% 42%
- hepatics 508 0.05% 39 39 20% 0.2% 71% 72% 75% 63% 68%
- vascular plants 603,481 60% 6,617 4,569 76% 29% 77% 76% 69% 59% 68%
Mycetozoa 1,352 0.1% 57 57 ? 0.4% 30% 25% 31% 36% 33%
all fungi 55,481 5.5% 1,951 1,942 30% 12% 44% 41% 39% 35% 38%
- Agaricomycetes 29,207 3% 1,045 1,039 ? 7% 36% 46% 39% 34% 39%
- Lecanoromycetes 17,292 1.7% 353 352 ? 2% 66% 41% 48% 47% 44%
all animals 325,735 32.5% 9,302 8,670 20% 55% 71% 66% 71% 71% 71%
- Cnidaria 421 0.04% 30 7 15% 0% 78% 85% 61% 77% 76%
- Annelida 737 0.07% 29 28 5% 0.1% 20% 10% 13% 33% 22%
- all molluscs 13,382 1.3% 310 267 65% 1.7% 76% 62% 57% 64% 61%
-- Caenogastropoda 590 0.06% 43 29 ? 0.1% 77% 54% 58% 72% 67%
-- Hygrophila 860 0.1% 25 23 ? 0.1% 84% 54% 64% 55% 64%
-- Stylommatophora 10,687 1% 169 160 80% 1% 77% 65% 58% 59% 60%
-- Bivalvia 1,064 0.1% 56 45 ? 0.5% 59% 77% 58% 59% 55%
- all arthropods 217,171 22% 7,743 7,634 15% 49% 68% 57% 62% 64% 63%
-- all crustaceans 2,168 0.2% 131 121 10% 1% 58% 52% 73% 74% 71%
--- Branchiopoda 210 0.02% 16 15 70% 0% 51% 63% 44% 28% 40%
--- Copepoda 33 0% 10 10 5% 0% 10% 9% 2% 3% 5%
--- Amphipoda 62 0% 8 8 5% 0% 2% 14% 14% 11% 12%
--- Isopoda 1,219 0.1% 56 56 ? 0.3% 60% 53% 80% 77% 74%
--- Decapoda 570 0.05% 37 28 60% 0.2% 72% 81% 82% 86% 84%
-- all arachnids 17,453 1.7% 476 465 10% 3% 42% 43% 49% 56% 48%
--- spiders 15,247 1.5% 351 342 30% 2% 44% 42% 48% 56% 48%
--- harvestmen 572 0.05% 26 26 60% 0.1% 48% 67% 81% 81% 70%
--- mites 1,496 0.15% 91 90 5% 0.6% 20% 17% 26% 20% 24%
-- myriapods 1,618 0.16% 39 38 25% 0.2% 50% 23% 34% 58% 38%
-- Entognatha 361 0.04% 32 32 5% 0.2% 30% 22% 39% 38% 32%
-- all insects 195,058 19.5% 7,064 6,978 20% 44% 64% 59% 63% 66% 65%
--- Odonata 7,571 0.7% 72 70 90% 0.4% 86% 71% 84% 90% 85%
--- Orthoptera 7,367 0.7% 132 131 60% 0.8% 66% 86% 78% 75% 74%
--- Hymenoptera 21,674 2% 939 931 5% 6% 41% 34% 39% 39% 40%
--- Coleoptera 44,005 4% 1,864 1,851 30% 12% 68% 59% 67% 65% 65%
--- Lepidoptera 72,759 7% 2,251 2,218 40% 14% 76% 77% 80% 76% 79%
--- Diptera 17,636 1.7% 889 881 15% 6% 27% 27% 34% 38% 36%
--- all Hemiptera 16,987 1.7% 704 698 ? 4% 63% 59% 68% 70% 66%
---- Heteroptera 13,088 1.3% 409 405 50% 3% 75% 73% 78% 79% 77%
---- Auchenorrhyncha 2,219 0.2% 128 127 ? 0.8% 34% 43% 44% 48% 40%
---- Sternorrhyncha 1,603 0.16% 167 166 ? 1% 10% 9% 14% 13% 14%
- all vertebrates 93,631 9% 1127 679 83% 4% 93% 90% 94% 92% 93%
-- fishes (Actinopterygii) 2,422 0.2% 312 151 60% 1% 80% 85% 76% 86% 83%
-- amphibians 4,487 0.4% 37 22 100% 0.1% 70% 83% 77% 74% 83%
-- reptiles 5,418 0.5% 82 25 96% 0.1% 99% 98% 97% 99% 97%
-- birds 69,320 7% 455 362 90% 2% 96% 94% 97% 95% 96%
-- mammals 11,797 1.2% 229 115 95% 0.7% 80% 75% 80% 80% 79%

Large speciose eukaryote groups in Ukraine that nearly not covered on iNat and not listed above are algae (c. 5000 species), other protists (c. 1200), flatworms (c. 1300), rotifers (c. 600) and nematodes (c. 800). Together it's about 15% of the estimated biodiversity in Ukraine that unlikely to be covered on iNat significantly unless some experts on these groups will be uploading observations (or if some easily available and very advanced technologies will appear in the future). The same also applies to probably even more species of various fungi and arthropods.

Therefore, comparing to other countries on iNat, we actually have rather good ID rates in the speciose groups with good potential for identification by photo, except large fungi (Agaricomycetes, etc), mosses, crustaceans, orthopterans, dipterans and some groups of heteropterans.

Just tagging here also some other active contributors from Ukraine not mentioned above, who could be interested @koniakin_serhii @ivanmoysiyenko @vkolomiychuk @martsun_oleg @anasta_kz @viktoria @sergotravelian @maryna_zakharova @galyna_mykytynets @mykytaperegrym @dr_zamoroka @ruslan_gleb @lena_miskova @vlasta_loya @olena_fomina @kateryna_kalashnik @mykola_borysenko @nadiiaskobel @skazhenijandrew @halyna9 @bazazga @yuliia_spinova @kasya_harb @iryna_dovhaniuk @alposylaev @andrey_novgorodsky @fejanor @beren_ua @sashauhnivenko @maria_2021 @petya21 @kateryna_filiuta @alexandra_glevaha @kyrylo_sirenko @lavrusik_denys @igorpyshnyi @naturalist30931 @olsher @olegrozhko @andriy_miskov @khodos @annakuzemko @lavrinenkokaterina @spriahailo @driadash @olesya_bezsmertna @hanna_kuzyo @yehoryatsiuk @juliana_leshchenko @maksym_gavrilyuk

Publicado el sábado, 16 de septiembre de 2023 a las 10:20 PM por igor117 igor117 | 15 comentarios | Deja un comentario

jueves, 04 de mayo de 2023

Basic suggestions on how to photograph molluscs for iNat

Some species of molluscs can be easily identified by a photo taken from almost any angle, but in most cases you need to see the mollusc from several angles or from some specific angle. Therefore, it is always worth taking more than one photo in each observation, even if only from slightly different angles, which will at least allow a better assessment of the shape of the shell or body of the mollusc.

If you find a snail with a relatively flat or low oval shell, then after taking a photo, you should at least turn the animal over and take a picture of the shell from the opposite side as well. It is also better to take a third photo "from the side", better with a clear view of the aperture of the shell (the opening where mollusc pull in). A simple example of an iNat observation.

If the found snail has a relatively high "elongated" shell, then the most important thing is to photograph it so that it is turned with the aperture (opening) of the shell towards the camera and so that the axis of the shell is parallel to the lens and the shell looks as straight as possible, not tilted at an angle. If it is a living snail that has not hidden in the shell, then it is worth pushing it a little carefully so that it is pulled inside and at least the inner edges of the aperture can be seen, many species have there specific structures ("teeth"). A simple example of an iNat observation. In more difficult cases, such as with species of the family Clausiliidae, a good view of the interior of the aperture may be required, for example like here.

If you find a terrestrial slug that does not have a shell, it is important to take a photo of the animal from the right (!) side so that the location of the breathing opening (pneumostome) in the right front part of the body is clearly visible. It is also highly desirable that the entire back of the animal is clearly visible in the photo. It may not be superfluous to additionally turn the animal over and to take a photo from below. A simple example of an iNat observation.

If the mollusc found is bivalve, then you need to take photos from all sides. After placing it on a relatively flat surface (for example, the palm of your hand), take a photo exactly "from above". If it's a single empty valve turn it over and take a photo "from below". Then take a photo exactly "side-drawn" from the side of the hinge (which fastens the two valves). If these are empty valves, then it is worth taking several more detailed photos around the hinge from the inside. A simple example of an iNat observation.

In all cases, it is much better if there is something for the scale in the photo, which will allow to accurately estimate the size of the animal. For example, a ruler.

Many modern smartphones have a separate macro camera, which, however, may not be "visible" for the iNat application. Therefore, if you happened upon a relatively small mollusc, then after taking a photo with the main camera, switch to the basic smartphone camera application, use macro mode and take several additional photos and add them to the observation separately. At the same time, in almost all cases, when taking macro photos with a smartphone, it is best to use the constant illumination mode. This, of course, is also relevant for all other small organisms.

When searching for terrestrial molluscs, you should pay attention to wet dead wood lying on the ground, even wet discarded boards. If you turn over a log or other piece of wood, you can often find slugs and small snails on the back side. Many molluscs live in leaf litter and turf where you can often find a great variety of very small snails (from 1mm) if you just bend down and look carefully. Such species are quite rare on iNat, probably because they are difficult to see standing or crouching down a bit. But if you bend low, or especially lie down (for example, by laying down a ground pad), in habitats where small plant remains accumulate, you can easily find many species that can be identified by normal macrophotos. In the temperate regions most of these small species are in broadleaved forests, but there are also many in various other habitats. For example, small snails of the genus Vallonia (as well as some other molluscs) are easy to find in very various habitats: gardens, parks, any deciduous or mixed forests, in natural and semi-natural grasslands, etc. (but mostly not on open ground, not in fields, not on very sandy soil and not in Scots pine forests). A simple example of an iNat observation in a home garden and another one from there.

Publicado el jueves, 04 de mayo de 2023 a las 08:43 PM por igor117 igor117 | 0 comentarios | Deja un comentario

Базові рекомендації фотографування молюсків для iNat

Деякі види молюсків можна легко впізнати за фото з майже будь-якого ракурсу, але в більшості випадків потрібно бачити молюска з кількох сторін чи лише з якогось певного специфічного ракурсу. Тому завжди варто зробити більше одного фото у спостереженні, навіть якщо з лише трохи відмінних ракурсів, що принаймні дозволить краще оцінити форму мушлі чи тіла молюска.

Якщо Ви знайшли равлика з відносно пласкою чи низькою овальною мушлею, то зробивши фото, варто хоча б перевернути тварину та сфотографувати мушлю й з протилежного боку теж. Краще також зробити й третє фото "збоку", при цьому бажано щоб відкривався чіткий вид всередину вустя мушлі (отвору, куди молюск втягується). Простий приклад iNat спостереження.

Якщо знайдений равлик має відносно високу «видовжену» мушлю, то найважливіше зняти його так, щоб він був повернутий вустям (отвором) мушлі до камери і щоб вісь мушлі була паралельною до лінзи об’єктива, тобто щоб мушля виглядала максимально випрямлено, а не була нахилена під кутом. Якщо це живий равлик, який при цьому не сховався в мушлю, то варто його трохи обережно підштовхнути, щоб він втягнувся всередину та було видно хоча б внутрішні краї вустя, де у багатьох видів є характерні структури («зуби»). Простий приклад iNat спостереження. У складніших випадках, наприклад, з видами родини Clausiliidae, може бути потрібен гарний огляд внутрішньої частини вустя, наприклад так.

Якщо знайшли слимака, у якого немає мушлі, то важливо зняти тварину з правого (!) боку, щоб було добре видно розташування дихального отвору в правій передній частині тіла. Також дуже бажано, щоб на фото було чітко видно всю спину тварини. Не зайвим може бути додатково перевернути тварину і зняти знизу. Простий приклад iNat спостереження.

Якщо знайдений молюск двостулковий, то потрібно зробити три фото. Поклавши на відносно рівну поверхню (наприклад, на долоню) зняти рівно «зверху», перевернути і зняти «знизу», а потім рівно «збоку» зі сторони замка (який скріплює дві стулки). Якщо це порожні стулки, то варто зробити кілька детальніших фото замка зсередини. Простий приклад iNat спостереження.

В усіх випадках краще, якщо на фото буде щось для масштабу, що дозволить точно оцінити розмір тварини. Наприклад, лінійка.

У багатьох сучасних смартфонах є окрема макрокамера, яку однак може «не бачити» додаток iNat. Тому якщо Вам трапився відносно дрібний молюск, то варто зробивши фото основною камерою, переключитися на базовий додаток смартфону для камери, перейти в макрорежим та зробити кілька додаткових фото й окремо додати їх до спостереження. При цьому майже в усіх випадках роблячи макрофото смартфоном, найкраще використовувати режим постійної підсвітки. Це звісно актуально і щодо всіх інших дрібних організмів.

Шукаючи наземних молюсків, варто звернути увагу на вологу мертву деревину, що лежить на землі, навіть на вологі викинуті дошки. Перевернувши колоду чи інший шматок дерева, на зворотному боці часто можна знайти слимаків і дрібних равликів. Багато молюсків живе у листяній підстилці та в дернині, де часто можна знайти значне різноманіття дуже дрібних равликів (від 1 мм), якщо просто нахилитися чи присісти й уважно пошукати. Такі види досить рідко потрапляють на iNat, мабуть тому що їх важко побачити стоячи чи трохи присівши. Але якщо нахилитися низько, чи краще прилігти (наприклад, підстеливши каремат), у біотопах де накопичуються дрібні рослинні залишки, можна знайти чимало видів, які цілком визначаються за нормальними макрофото. Найбільше таких дрібних видів в широколистяних лісах, але чимало й в багатьох інших біотопах. Наприклад, дрібних равликів роду Vallonia, дернівок (а також і деяких інших молюсків), легко знайти майже будь-де: у садах, парках, будь-яких листяних чи мішаних лісах, в природних степах, на луках тощо (але переважно не на відкритій землі, не на полях і городах, не на дуже піщаному ґрунті та не в соснових лісах). Простий приклад iNat спостереження в домашньому саді і ще один звідти ж.

Publicado el jueves, 04 de mayo de 2023 a las 07:48 PM por igor117 igor117 | 2 comentarios | Deja un comentario

Archivos