In several instances I have failed to photograph creatures (be it because I didn’t have my device on me, or that it was encountered in my early childhood and I didn’t know what it was back then, or it escaping before I get the opportunity to photograph)
I have failed to find many of these species again, and I wonder if drawing them may still count as a valid ID
Field sketches are accepted. It should be one you made while observing the individual that the observation documents. Please don’t add drawings from memory or drawings of photographs of the type of organism you think you saw.
You can always just add observations that lack media evidence.
My examples are organisms that I am 100% sure of their identification
Two examples are a julodis euphratica I saw in 2014 and an androctonus carassicauda I saw in 2012 (didn’t have me device on me for the first and was too scared to get near the second as i was only 8), I’ve failed to find any others since then so what I wondered was can I draw the species to make up for a non documented sighting years later?
No, as a human you can’t draw the specimen you saw after all this time, you’ll be biased and likely just will draw a species in general, as was said - sketches should be made when you see specimen in question or right after that. Just add an observation without media.
Is there an exception for marine organisms? Can’t use pen and paper under water. So, for the very few times I am snorkeling without my camera, is it acceptable to draw the organism as soon as possible afterwards?
I’d say sure!
What if I’m completely sure of the species (for example a monotypic genus) or one with clearly recognisable features that are exclusive to the species?
I would still say that adding a casual observation is better, as you’re going to portray not this specimen, but how you remembered it from years ago, I also have such observations, and looking at how I proceed momeries even from not that long ago, it seems it’s impossible to remember it good enough for sketh without getting details from knowledge of the group, like I saw Sisyra fuscata around 6 years ago, I know it, but I can’t draw exactly what I saw, it will be more of how I saw tons of this species’ and related groups’ photos over the years after it happened. Plus it can be very easy to fool yourself about what you saw, that’s why fresh memories or specimen itsefl are more valuable.
yeah for this it is best to just make an observation without any media. It will say ‘casual’ but can still be useful to yourself and others.
How about if the observer marks the record as “Evidence of Organism = No” when putting in drawings from memory? Maybe even a note in the description so others don’t try to ID it.
I can understand the desire to have some picture in this digital notebook since that’s how it’s designed to work best.
i believe this may remove the observation from maps and such, because it’s treated as wrong data not just casual data.
I don’t think records “from memory” should be on maps. There isn’t really any evidence. The drawing is going to general in nature and represent the taxa but not any individual.
Drawings made while observing or soon after the encounter would be evidence. The drawing is much more likely to be of that individual.
We could dicriminate between evidence drawing and descriptional drawing. The first is to be treated like a foto, the second like a verbal description.
i mean from memory is relative. If i go on a hike, forget my phone (oh no) and see a red oak tree in an unusual location, then i get home and add it to iNat, i think that’s a perfectly good observation. If i am thinking back “hmm, i think in 2003 i saw some ceanothus on this hill in California but i don’t remember what species, i think it was leucodremis, and what hill was it again, oh i’ll just map it to one in the general area” that doesn’t belong on the map. Etc. I don’t think a sketch should be considered evidence for either
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.