This works for me: Turn to them with a touch of excitement and wonder, “Oh, I’m starting to learn about some plants!” (or insects or mushrooms or whatever seems believable at the moment). They may vaguely smile and nod or maybe even give a good tip about something.
As a regular Pokemon Go player I’m way, way past the “feeling silly doing something strange outside” phase though. ;)
Thanks, that’s perfect! I’m going to use that explanation. I’ve tried just saying no and thanking them, but then they look at me like I might be on the run from somewhere.
Ну, в моём случае - отсутствие специалистов в регионе. Просто некому подтверждать правильно идентифицированные виды…
Carry a clip board. They’ll think you know what you’re doing. :-)
The only down side is, they’ll assume you know where the restrooms are and ask directions.
Good idea :D I need a clipboard.
The lack of attention to avian osteology.
Went to a park, they had osteological/taxidermy specimen from three different fish, a bounty of mammals, about three reptiles, and only one bird skull, a turkey vulture, with an informational sheet saying they are now officially classified as storks.
Mammal skull IDing is often seen as standard skill for wildlife tracking and monitoring, and there are countless resources both in print and online to help naturalists ID mammal skulls and other skeletal elements. The only guide I have found for avian bone IDing that even begins to hold a candle to the wealth of information on mammalian osteology is directed at archaeologists, not naturalists or zoologists (Osteology for the Archaeologist, written by archaeologist Stanley J. Olsen. The guide is fantastic, but I find it interesting that there are no comprehensive sources for avian osteology directed towards those more interested in “the natural world”).
The inattention to bird bones is very apparent on iNat. Confusing Strigidae skulls for Accipitriformes is a common mistake even though they’re definitely distinguishable (owl’s skulls are highly adapted for a nocturnal lifestyle). It’s very common perfectly identifiable bird bones get down voted as “cannot be improved” when the ID definitely can be improved, sometimes down to species. Off the top of my head I can probably think of a dozen regular mammal bone IDers, while I can count all the regular avian bone IDers on a single hand.
This is a hard one. Sometimes curators can make a thousand IDs in a day on the organisms they study on a daily basis, and explaining every ID would be prohibitively time-consuming. I love to respond to people who politely ask why I made a different ID.
I just carry a camera and tripod and stare vaguely up into the trees when people pass by. But then I get people stopping to ask “What do you see?” and I have to pretend there was a bird that just flew away, because I get weird looks if I admit I was actually examining the mold species on the dog poop beside the trail before they came along.
This is the age old argument of lumping and splitting. It can be argued ad infinitum. You’re a staunch lumper @charlie , but a lot of people who study their organisms in a narrow sense have completely valid and reasonable arguments for splitting too. I don’t think it’s fair to them to dismiss their work (and struggles), but I can certainly understand your frustration.
Yes, it’s hard to specify as in English it’s all the same word, heh, but first one mean you just doesn’t know and can be interpreted in both ways, the second is more punishing (?), for second day I just will translate the definition:
“Lack of knowledge, education.
Ushakov dictionary: lack of cognition, culture, colloquial: bad manners, rudeness.
Appears in aspirations and acts of a person not knowing or ignoring the point, that leads to loosing the first, real meaning of their aspirations. Aspirations and acts leading to find the “point” (hard for me to choose the word, it’s a philosophical meaning) are Not called so.
Невежество can be expressed in aggressive acts (vandalism), when people (невежды) are trying to destroy the results of intellectual and spiritual work that they think are the reason of their misfortune.
It can appear not only in poorly educated people but also in too narrowly educated specialists.”
Oh I hear you. In my local WMA marsh, in the 1920’s they built Oregon Highway 203, they lined the roads with black willow seedlings to soak up the water so the road doesn’t sink or flood. It did come into use 100 years as nesting spot for Swainson’s, Red-tailed and Great Horned Owls, they are still non-native and naturally grows several states east of me. In the 1970’s, they planted Rocky Mountain Juniper which is a native species but it sucked up all the water and some streams that flowed into the marsh don’t anymore. They finally got their act together this fall and I helped them plant 2,000 hawthorn and snowberry bushes and we’re cutting down the junipers once the seedlings take hold.
Just so you know, I do respect your opinion even though I heartily disagree. I’ve been focusing my Unknown ID efforts in Asia so as to mostly stay off your turf 
Not a pet peeve of mine but I’m pretty sure its a pet peeve of others: Grainy zoomed in phone shots of birds. I cannot deny I am absolutely guilty of this. One day I will buy a telephoto lens or a camera.
I have no shame of squatting in front of a log trying to spot all the little critters crawling about on it 
I try to do that if I can without actually taking the mushroom off the ground (since I assume that would kill it?), but sometimes there’s no space! :)
It’s actually fine to flip mushrooms over, because they’re the “fruit” of the organism, not the organism itself (which is mostly underground) - it’s pretty much like picking an apple off a tree. In fact, if the mushroom is fully opened out, you’re probably helping it with spore dispersal :)
The mushroom is just the ‘fruiting body’ of the fungus which helps produce and disperse spores. You won’t destroy the main part of the fungus, which is underground / in its host.
Edit: seems @graysquirrel got here at the same time
Well now I know! :) Thanks
I‘d rather stop ID‘ing at all than explain for 500th time that it is (and why it is) Xanthoria parietina and not Candelaria concolor which AI has suggested. Actually, my biggest peeve is the naturalists who do not learn, repeat over and over same mistakes, rely totally on AI but strive to species level ID. And this kind, @ melodi_96 , is almost equally divided in all age groups with slightly larger ratio in Millenial part.
I do a lot of IDs, and yeah, I’d probably stop doing them if I had to explain every time. Especially since so many of them are inactive accounts, or people who never even look at their notifications. If someone is ever interested enough to ask, I’m happy to explain, but it usually just feels like wasted effort.