I’ve been thinking of a bit of an edge case here that I’ve run into recently…
Let’s consider a fruit that is physically separated from its parent organism but whose seeds have not undergone germination yet.
Let’s say an observation contains only media featuring such fruit.
For the sake of research data, which one or many of the following is eligible to be considered the single subject of such an observation?
Parent plant not featured in media
Featured fruit
One seed assumed to be contained within the fruit
One visible seed if such is featured in the media
0voters
If there is a help article or FAQ I missed the answer in — I’d appreciate a citation.
And finally, let me know if any pointers for annotating such an observation come to mind.
My own intuition is that the only eligible subject in this kind of observation is the parent plant not featured and that it is incorrect to annotate it as fruiting without evidence of current state. With fruit notionally constituting the “evidence of presence” of the plant.
One thing that is important to keep in mind is how variable the life histories of different plants are. Most plants have fruit that naturally decay quickly, and there is unlikely to be any temporal data quality issue by annotating them as fruiting. Other things, such as coconuts in Iceland and grapes hanging on an oakleaf hydrangea beside a bench, would certainly “mess up” the phenology charts. However, in those two examples, the observation cannot be evidence for the parent plant, as the parent plant could literally be on the other side of the planet.
Typically, whether you view the observation as representing the parent plant or the fruit itself doesn’t make a difference, but in the edge cases I think it’s clear the observation is for the fruit itself. Phenology charts don’t have to be anomaly free.
We ID on the available evidence in the photo.
I see fruit - and have always annotated that as fruit.
From forum conversations I realise that scientists have a more nuanced view - but the average ‘engage with nature’ iNatter sees fruit. End of.
I have a papwpaw from a friend, but her tree came down in the previous storm. RIP pawpaw tree. (True story the pawpaw is green and battered with rotten patches from the fall - will it still ripen ??) This year would have been her best crop ever
Yes, thank you. If my wording was not clear: I do intend the question for the sake of research grade observations. Which upon further reflection means that the subject must be an organism. And, in my head, to consider fruit — a vessel for propagules — as organism feels very wrong.
So this coconut: https://www.inaturalist.ca/observations/232092665
is evidence for the parent palm tree that dropped it into the ocean where it wandered on currents, apparently for quite a while, before washing up on the island where it was observed?
According to the concept of the extended phenotype put forward by Richard Dawkins, the extended phenotype of that tree includes the travelling fruit and it makes perfect sense to show its location as the beach on Cayo Largo del Sur. If an observer wanted to be really fussy they could set the precision to a couple of thousand kilometres.
Independent of Richard Dawkins “extended phenotype” it is clear that flowers and fruit, dropped / dispersed or not, are made of tissue of the parent plant (mainly) / are part of the parent plant.
Means if a fruit is documented on iNat
“ parent plant not featured in media”
can’t be chosen, as this is what a fruit is: tissue / part of and evidence for the parent plant.
If the fruit is in a shopping cart / in your kitchen it’s “captive/cultivated” that’s however a totally different discussion.
It appears that you might be focusing on a minor distinction in colloquial language.
The spirit of that option is in fact that we are pointing at the tissue of the parent plant featured as its detached fruit and referring to the parent plant unseen manifested as this evidence.
It’s only that the parent plant, that persists beyond its fruiting above or under the surface of its substrate for at least some time, is not featured in the colloquial sense.
In that sense I could argue that the parent plant is not featured but its tissue is featured as evidence of presence.
How does this description align with your perspective?
Shall I perhaps use a different term to refer to the main part of the plant to avoid ambiguity arising from colloquial language?
Furthermore, as @pmeisenheimer seems to suggest, if I understood him right, while such an observation provides little information about the parent plant beyond its species derived from taxonomic keys of its fruit — a wild observation of a plant’s fruit at any given location does demonstrate the subject plant’s capacity to reach this location with its reproductive dispersal effort.
This insight can be valuable in understanding the distribution and ecological interactions of the plant’s wider population even if such an observation does not pinpoint the location of the parent plant subject.
If it’s any help with framing this, people report marine critters washed up on beaches as evidence of those critters naturally occurring in that location. It doesn’t mean they (can or do) live there, but it’s a factual account of where their remains were naturally found.
That doesn’t seem a lot different to a coconut (viable or not) washed up on a beach somewhere - though maybe less convincing as a demonstration of reproductive capacity :)
If someone wants to use that as evidence of a range extension, the onus is on them to correctly interpret the information provided.
If an observer wanted to be really fussy they could set the precision to a couple of thousand kilometres.
This irks me. Wouldn’t that be wrong to do…?
Hear me out… I want to say that location is supposedly given for observed evidence of organism, not for organism to whom the observed evidence belongs. Am I wrong?
Without meaning to derail the topic I wish to ask about a couple other possible cases — it may help me refine my framework of understanding.
What about leafmine observations in this regard?
And, quite differently, what about an observation of a very high tree taken from a considerable distance?
Should geotags for such observations be adjusted to include approximate location of the organism? Even if in the former case it’s pretty indeterminate…?
Upon further reflection I come to a stronger conviction that it would make things clearer for everyone involved if plant observation annotations included an evidence kind field like insect ones do.
precision should be how certain you are of the location of the subject of the observation (accuracy of your GPS, or dead reckoning, or however else you figured out where you thought you were), not your estimate of how far it may have traveled to get there.
In the case of your “tall tree in the distance” example, that’s not your GPS location, it’s where you estimate it to be relative to you, with a precision of how good you think your estimates of distance and direction are - unless of course you can also see the tree in the aerial photographs to put a pin right on it :D
