Recently ID’d an observation of a tarantula in Brazil. The observation was marked as casual and the photo was of the specimen in a clear box. This species is popular in the pet trade so I wasn’t very surprised to see that, but I was surprised to see that the location was right in the middle of the species’ natural range. I asked the poster if the animal was a pet or if he caught it in the wild and released it. He explained that the animal was caught in the wild by another individual and kept in a short time in captivity. The other person allowed him to take and post the photo, but the observer did not know whether they kept the spider or not afterward, and so opted to mark the observation as “not wild.” Wasn’t sure what the protocol was for this, but my first instinct was that the specimen should be marked wild as it was found in nature in its natural habitat. To my understanding the purpose of the “not wild” designation (at least, as it applies to tarantulas) is to make sure that captive animals outside of their natural habitat are not mistaken for invasive species established where they don’t belong. What do you guys think?
If the time and location recorded are where it was found before collection, the observation should be marked as wild. If not, captive.
Since the observer took the photo while it was in captivity, not at the time and place it was captured, I believe they were correct to mark it Not Wild.
If the person who captured it had taken a photo at the time, that person could have made a “Wild” observation.
There are always lots of viewpoints on this, but I believe the consensus view (and iNat policy) is the one expressed by @varanus_enthusiast
- If an organism is collected/captured from the wild, but the observer sets the date/time and location to reasonably reflect the place where it was originally found, then the observation should be marked wild.
- If the location and date/time reflect where the organism was photographed after capture, then it should be marked captive/cultivated.
For a single observation, the distinction between the observer and the person who actually captured the tarantula is not really significant, so long as the observer has reliable information about the place and date where it was found in the wild.
Because iNat is intended to support observers’ own experience of the natural world, it wouldn’t be ideal for someone to upload lots of observations of captive organisms with locations and date/time info adjusted to their supposed collection locations. This is why bulk additions of other people’s insect collections or herbarium specimens are not encouraged.
Note that temporary containment in the field generally isn’t counted as captive: for example, a snake in the hand, or a nudibrach in a container on the tidepools.
It’s not clear to me that the spider in this case was kept in captivity for a few minutes in the field or not.
That’s the tricky part, I’m not sure. And I don’t think the observer is sure either. In that case, it seems it’s better to air on the side of caution and leave it as captive.
Out of curiosity, how long does an organism have to be kept in a container before we consider it captive?
For instance, the year before last, I collected several batches of year-early periodical cicada nymphs and allowed them to emerge inside like so. (Excuse the rough set up) Technically, they were emerging in captivity, but as that captivity was temporary and part of an experiment, I did not mark the observation as such. My question is, at what point or in what situation would it have been appropriate to flag those cicadas as captive?
These should be captive in my mind (and there are a good amount of threads discussing insects and other organisms brought into captivity that metamorphose). The emergence in captivity doesn’t reflect what happened under natural conditions and they’ve changed life stages from the initial observation. The individuals might have been eaten or emerged at different times if they were in a natural state. This could throw off phenology data, etc. In general, I think many things that involve an experimental manipulation of an animal are likely to make observations that should be casual, as changing the animal from its natural state is implied by the experiment.
No matter whether the person kept the spider or not, it should be marked wild, in my opinion. It was caught from the wild, at that place, on that day, and apparently photo’d not long after capture, so being in captivity hasn’t had time to change it.
“Captured and kept” should be treated the same as “hunted and harvested’ imo. Do you know where the animal was shot or trapped and about when? Then it’s RG worthy. The only difference is that after you lose track, I mark a “captured” animal captive and a “hunted” animal as inaccurate date or location
I found this wild vs captive question difficult at times. For example, I found that getting a good quality image of a minnow (or other small organism) can be difficult if you are crouching alongside a small creek in a location jammed full of stinging nettle. For me it is easier to just put the minnows in a bucket and bring them home a few hundred yards from the creek and shoot them in an easier location where I can get better shots and then walk them back to the creek. The creek is so close to me I didn’t think shooting them at home would be a big deal. All I wanted was great shots instead of a crappy ones. But some folks noticed domestic items in the background of those pics and marked them as captive. For me living a few steps from where I can catch more it is easier to just delete the observation than debate what is wild vs captive and that is what I sometimes do.
I have not gone minnow dipping in two years so I have had time to think about this. Next time I go minnow dipping/trapping I will get the shot of the organism while in the net/trap (or a small clear dollar-store container I carry in my backpack) and if it is one I bring home for better shots, I will upload those shots as a separate observation. Shots taken at the location of capture will go in as wild and the the better shots as wild but shot at home (which may or may not get knocked down to captive). I will then link the potential captive to the wild in the description with the URL. I think it was @sedgequeen who first gave me that tip when I wanted to include a picture of a sign indicating the area I was in had experienced a controlled burn. It wasn’t that big of a deal so I just removed the pic but it was a great idea for the future.
In the tarantula example, however, there is no image of the organism in or next to the wild where it was captured. I say “next to” because I count a snake being held in hand at the location of capture or a fish on a lure as being wild even though technically they are captive at the moment of the shot. Like @tiwane I do not consider temporary containment in the field as captive (though I do realize a fish on a lure may get eaten by the fisherman).
I just don’t know how far I can go from the collection site to get the shot before it becomes captive.
If I catch a crayfish in the tiny pond behind my house and walk 125 paces back home to shoot it at my kitchen window and then put it back in the pond a few hours later, was it wild or captive? Many will mark it captive. If I walked to my deck just five feet from the inside of my house and shot it there where you can see the pond in the background is it captive or wild? Nobody will mark this captive. So it is best for me to take my little dollar-store clear container outside five feet to the deck rail to get the shot. Appearance is everything in this case even though the shots were taken just a few feet apart. It makes is easier on everybody.
In the case of the tarantula I would have to call if “captive” on the basis of the poster not having enough information. The statement “short time in captivity” really doesn’t tell us what the owner means by a short time. Is a short time, one day, a week, a month or what? If the “short time was one or two days, I’d go for wild. But we have no idea of how long he had that organism. Many things can change within a “short time.”
Is the Rainbow Darter that I might catch in the creek behind me and put in my aquarium still wild an hour later? I’d say yes (though technically also captive since once a fish has been placed in an aquarium it should never be returned to the wild to prevent the spreading of disease, parasites, etc.). Would it be considered wild if I photographed it a few weeks later just before release? I’d say no because I’d have been feeding it a diet that is not native to its range in much greater abundance that it might be getting in the wild. What and how much it eats can make a difference in its appearance and even its habits. A darter that has to compete with minnows to get frozen brine shrimp to eat as it floats on the surface will eventually learn to feed at the surface, and rather quickly at that. A shot of a darter feeding at the surface is not natural. Seven or eight darters swimming at the front of the glass waiting for me to feed them as I enter the room is not a natural shot and I don’t think should be presented as such. Water temps might make a huge difference too. The darters in my fish tank swimming around in 65F probably look a bit different than the ones in the freezing water in the creek behind me. Male darters may start exhibiting their breeding colors sooner in the warmer aquarium environment … and the list goes on.
So for me with the info available the tarantula is captive. To me, the length of time it was in captivity matters.
He said “the animal was caught in the wild by another individual and kept in a short time in captivity”
The examples you give, of catching something in the creek, taking it back to the house to photograph, then returning it to the creek: those are wild so long as you put the location as the creek. Don’t let your camera automatically put the location as the house where the photos were taken. In fact they would still count as wild if you ate the crayfish after you had photographed it. The creek is where you encountered the animal in the wild and it is that encounter that you are recording.
I agree with you 100%! My locations always go in appropriately as my camera does not have GPS (thank god) and I give the locations manually, the time is in within reason as I would never drag a bucket of minnows or crawfish around more than the time it takes to catch a few and walk back through the woods home (half hour tops with fish). The problem is not really in what I think is wild but in what others perceive a shot taken in a kitchen window represents. If shot from the kitchen window and they see the edge of a planter or see a deck outside the window, etc., it becomes captive in their minds. The same shot taken out of the kitchen to the deck rail overlooking the wilds go unhindered. I’m just learning that rather than take the shot from the kitchen window and then having to debate the wild vs captive scenario with some folks it’s just easier to go outside to my deck rail to get the shot there. It makes it easier for everybody. But yes I agree with you!
It often helps to include a note with such observations explaining the circumstances (e.g.: “taken inside temporarily in order to take better photos and then re-released; time and location of observation reflect when it was found in the wild”). Sometimes IDers will still end up overlooking notes, but including them at least reduces the likelihood of observations mistakenly getting marked as not wild. A preemptive “wild” vote can also help.
But what if the organism was shot at a much later date after capture? Many things can change in that time depending on how long it was. For example, a Rainbow Darter in my aquarium is not going to be found in the same location in winter than summer and the breeding colors of the male may begin the develop earlier in my aquarium due to the warmer temps than in the wild.
Yes, I do that most of the time and it does help a lot but not always.
Presuming that by shot, you mean photographed: This is where iNaturalist would want it marked as captive because what you are photographing is materially different from what you encountered in the wild.
Thank you for the clarification. That is the way I thought too.
This is really well put!