As others have pointed out, annotating plants as female just because they are in fruit is botanically incorrect. Please do not add such annotations, and please reverse any that you have added. The binary choice of male and female, when applied to plants, refers to the condition of being dioecious, having male and female flowers on separate plants. Then and only then would the annotation be appropriate.
6 Likes
Seconding the please! :) I and many others often use mobile upload, and need to add phenology later, which just adds a step in the process thatās easy to forget (as mentioned in a few places above).
1 Like
Agreed that this would be very useful. I want to annotate all my observations with this information, but trying to auto-convert from Observation Fields is a mess (1 out of 3 fields I just filled out populated a corresponding annotation).
I think many more beginning users would utilize annotations if they were prompted upon uploading. For some annotations this may effect the quality of uploads, eg. male/female for plants, but phenology would be incredibly updated. Itās not as hard to tell if something is flowering or fruiting. Having these annotated on mass would be a great improvement to iNaturalist.
2 Likes
Male and female annotations for plants are messed up. Because the default is offered for all plants - including the ones where the annotations apply - and it would be good if we could rely on them being correctly applied.
Rather do a taxon sweep later - by someone who knows what they are doing.
Iām all for this feature - I am usually too lazy and hate adding annotations to my observations after I upload them.