Allow GBIF and BOLD photos to be used for species pages lacking photos

Platform(s): website, all browsers.

URLs (example):
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1361839-Stenonartonia-apicipennis
https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/2013677023

Description of need:
Species pages lacking iNat photos create a difficulty because identifiers need to search for photos outside iNat but can’t add the photos, so end up often rechecking the same sources over time or not checking any. Species lacking photos are often overlooked, resulting in some mis- and missed-identifications. Adding photos to taxa pages before they’ve been observed often helps them become recognized, identified, and verified by others for the first time. Currently taxon pages allow adding images externally from Flickr, EOL, and Wikimedia Commons via Curation: Edit Photos, but they often have no photos.

Feature request details:
For many species GBIF and BOLD include the only Internet-accessible images. It would help to be able to add these photos to iNat species pages, and seems natural since iNat taxon pages already link to BOLD from About and syncs with GBIF for distribution maps.

Don’t forget to vote for your own request!

1 Like

Thanks, just came back from walking and noticed it was approved.

2 Likes

Yeah, this is great. There are tons of photos on BOLD with CC-BY, -NC, -ND, or -SA for taxa with none. For flies in particular, this would be absolutely incredible.

2 Likes

@andrawaag seen this?

BOLD is incredibly inaccurate right now on a lot of species. I don’t think we are far enough along in technology to accept them as taxon photos.
Once someone researched a species and IDs one, it’s easy for a curator to add it as the inat photo.
I have been sending off a lot of moths lately for barcoding and it’s obvious individuals have sent in a lot of specimens based off of guesses from morphology and are wrong a lot. It will take a long time to clean up BOLD.

I partially agree that such specimens determinations can be inaccurate, including for GBIF. In case clarification is needed, I didn’t mean all blank iNat species pages would automatically be populated with the images. I only meant they’d be added manually (if at all, per species page) by those who review/vet them, via Edit Photos. Most people who are even checking BOLD and GBIF specimens in the first place are seriously into ID and often have some level of training, too. I do agree that you bring up an important caution, though.

As such, people also viewing the taxon pages that only have one of those specimen photos (not only those who add them) should attempt to determine if they’re correct, too. Generally we might need more caution for specific groups. In my primary current groups of bees and (especially many) wasps, often the species are distinctive and can be reliably verified in the photos, though. I don’t know many moths well yet, although know they’re numerous and often difficult.

1 Like

Flickr have all kinds of wrongly named photos, but we still can use them and choose correct one, I think idea is to have that ability and GBIF certainly have lots of good accurate photos.

2 Likes

That’s a good point… is there some way to volunteer for BOLD to ‘vet’ images?

All users can do this, so if Tyler is right (and they are), random users may add images from BOLD that may or may not be incorrect without actually checking, just because the taxon doesn’t have any images on iNat, Flickr, Wikimedia, or EOL. Just something to note.

1 Like

Oh yeah I did realize that. I agree it’s good to note and look out for. I think eventually photo change history will be recorded, which may help a little.

1 Like