Thank you for that link.
But
Note also that this only works for your own observations
So this issue could be triggered by a placeholder for caterpillar? Will pass that on - but it may take some hours for the 24/7 to catch up across our time zones.
It was and is, not an intended effect in our project.
I don’t know if the devs would consider this a bug or not, but what’s happening is that when the value of the observation field is “caterpillar” (or “larva” or “pupa” etc.), then the Life Stage annotation is filled automatically even when the observation doesn’t meet the taxon requirements for the life stage annotation. That is, the code that normally makes it impossible to add Life Stage: Larva to an Unknown observation doesn’t kick in during the automatic mapping of observations fields to annotations.
@tiwane maybe you can ask if this is something they want to fix? (In my opinion it doesn’t really seem worth the effort.)
Thank you all very much for the analysis.
I confirm that I didn’t add this “Life Stage” annotation “Larva” (not manually, not using the iNat server’s API). We are figuring out that the iNat server did it on behalf of me (without asking me if I would agree, without any human supervision).
TMO this goes one step further with regard to the “machine generated content” question: this annotation is a content generated by the iNat server (a machine runned by iNat) expressly on behalf of someone (an iNatter) not affiliated to iNat.
The resulting annotation is entirely the responsibility of iNaturalist (running the machine), whether this is intended or not, desirable or not. I disagree that this annotation is added on behalf on me, I would prefer it to be added on behalf of the “iNat system”.
Note that the rules on “machine generated contents” apply only to observations, identifications, and comments (not to annotations [so far]). I am not claiming that iNat didn’t respect a rule, but I am really surprised that iNat does things on behalf of iNatters. I wouldn’t have imagined that. (I would like to be able to check an option to “opt-out of iNat generating contents on behalf of me”).
For the least, I wouldn’t like anyone to complain about the possible consequences of things done by iNat on behalf of me (or anyone else). We are all free to use the tools made available to us, as long as we respect the rules.
Thank you. I agree that your name should not be put on any automatic annotations. That seems a bit rude! It should be a system account, such as the account that automatically marks certain species as Cultivated in places.
This has turned out to be a far more interesting can of worms than I realised!
OK, here’s another weird Annotation puzzle.
I am adding life-stage annotations to Lepidoptera, and this happened:
Can anyone explain this one?
Later:
When I went back and checked it again, it now looks like this:
How about an Observation Field Saturday?
Yes! Love this idea! I am still not very knowledgeable about species so just to be helpful; I will just fill out the annotations as best as I can on the identification page and will add in starting ids for post with photos and without ids.
I would like to keep it on sunday since I expect most people have then more time.
Yes, that is true.
The shortcuts are an absolute game changer. Thank you!
I just went through a few of my reviewed observations and added a couple hundred annotations in under half an hour.
It also works for all the other annotations on animals (S then F/M for sex: female/male, A then A/D for alive/dead, E then O/G/L/etc. for evidence: organism/gall/leafmine…
I’m sure “Aaeola” has become one of my most typed words now XD
All good luck today with the first edition! 
The first Annotation Sunday!! 
Do you mean the average daily number?
Yes, correct also updated the text. Thank you
It is easy to add sex annotations to hoverflies in the subfamily Syrphinae! Eyes together = male, eyes separated = female.
Here is an article I wrote about it for a UK project, but the same applies everywhere.
Other subfamilies have some exceptions where males have separated eyes, but in Syrphinae you’re safe. Every hoverfly with eyes together is a male though, regardless of the subfamily.
Re: the conversation above about adding them to your own observations while you’re uploading, I also wrote an article about that!
Why not share what you’ve accomplished today? Best of luck with Annotation Sunday #2!
Yesterday I could do during Annotation Sunday #2:
In total 4563 observations annotated (wrote down my profile number before I started) and probably around 10k annotations added.
The average quality of photo’s is very good and I was amazed by the high quality of photo’s of some of the observers.
Looking forward to next edition.
Good luck with Annotation Sunday #3.
I will add life stage to: link - 342 pages currently
Same in Platypezinae (flat footed flies), I believe, where the males usually also are completely black.
But I‘m not familiar with every species there so I‘m not able to say whether there are any exceptions.
Two more Sundays for Great Southern Bioblitz, then I can retrieve my Need Annotation links.
