Casual vs. Restorative

M, you already found out they’re cultivated, so you have to mark them, those you have no idea about are different from those you were explicitly told about. It’s also pretty easy to not observe older trees where you know they were planted X years ago and only observe young ones. If you know you go against the guidelines, why do you keep it that way?

3 Likes

For me “casual” fits rather well. They are often planted only for ornamental purposes.

2 Likes

Thank you for chiming in. It’s nice to occasionally hear the thoughts of a curator. I’m new to the forum and appreciate any advice from pretty much anyone, but especially a curator.

I agree with you. I’d guess that 99% of all cultivated plants are cultivated primarily for aesthetic (ornamental) reasons. I doubt that my neighbor that planted the parent colony of liriope was thinking about the ecological benefit when choosing this plant. I can’t prove that it was a child of this colony that popped up in my woods. This means it’s able to reach “research” grade, despite the fact that the parent colony was planted more casually than my clump of Wild Hyacinth.

If I’m honest. And I try my best to be. I admit that part of my reason for choosing Wild Hyacinth for my restoration is that it fits itself into my residential neighborhood. It looks superficially similar to the Liriope. The bulk of my decision was based on ecological benefit. But I also understand how my neighbor sees things and hope I have influence over how others might view plant choices.

A question I have for curators is… If I see Wild Hyacinth on other parts of my lot where they clearly are not rhizomatic offshoots, do curators mostly agree that these stand alone plants would be considered “wild”? Because if they aren’t considered wild, then why is the Liriope?

Liriope volunteer…
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/93093102

Cultivated clump of Wild Hyacinth that has successfully spread via expanding rhizome…
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/45922977

Thanks again for responding, and for your efforts as a curator.

The guidelines in the FAQ are clear on the point of when a cultivar you planted is considered wild…when it is reprocing outside the planted area. So the Euonymus alatus that was planted when my house was built is captive/cultivated. The new sprouts from seeds and roots that come up right by those plants are captive/cultivated. The embarrassing and dismaying sprouts that come up 200 yards away are wild.

The Asclepias tuberosa I planted is captive cultivated. So far, it has only seeded within 18 inches of the planting. Those are cultivated by iNat’s definition.

I am ripping out mugwort. Asclepias syriaca is filling in on its own. That’s wild. I may plant some in that spot as well from harvested seed. Then i wont be able to distinguish on iNat. I will call it cultivated. Why not?

What is this resistance to following the guidelines laid out by the biologists/ecologists who set up the guidelines?

4 Likes

The rules on “planted” become very murky in the UK where most of our woodlands have been at least slightly managed for centuries. There’s ancient trees around me which have been pollarded and shaped by humans - are they wild? So many of our oaks were deliberately planted centuries ago - so should they be marked cultivated? How can you possibly know for each individual tree?

I don’t know, but it does seem slightly silly that this Atlas Cedar, say that’s been there under it’s own strength for 100 years gets placed the same category of “not wild” as a well-pampered houseplant - especially considering some native oak or something planted in a similar situation would reach Research Grade without any eyelids batted!

Generally the national recording schemes rules are generally a bit tamer with trees for this reason; so there’s smatterings of records for things like cedars, ginkos, monkey-puzzles and so on - “long-established individuals” which could easily be there for decades or perhaps even centuries to come are usually fair game in addition to the natives.

3 Likes

Many, many inatters feel similarly, and there are many, many threads mentioning the tree concern, as well as many, many threads dealing with cultivated v wild and restoration efforts. This might be one of the most talked about topics in the forum. Here are many, many related posts in threads for the search “tree cultivated”:

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/trees-that-were-planted-but-growing-in-wild-should-be-considered-wild-and-additional-grade-for-grey-zone-is-required/26777

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/the-category-of-cultivated-is-problematic-for-plants-in-urban-landscapes/2317

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/wild-american-bison-are-captive/24143/14

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/wild-or-cultivated-how-to-tell/19627

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/when-is-a-plant-no-longer-considered-cultivated/12194/2

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/survey-about-criteria-for-wild-captive-observations/27007/19

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/observations-from-areas-under-restoration/6418/2

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/do-i-misunderstand-the-wild-cultivated-distinction/31077

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/at-what-point-does-an-anthropogenic-introduction-become-wild/2221/14

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/flag-captive-or-cultivated/24815/3

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/is-a-tree-that-remained-from-a-natural-forest-and-now-part-of-a-city-park-wild-for-in/33008

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/trees-casual-or-not/23282/2

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/should-pocket-prairie-plants-be-considered-wild/38082/2

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/wild-vs-cultivated-for-escaped-garden-plants/30432/3

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/wild-or-kept-in-captivity-research-quality-or-hobby-quality-a-neverending-discussion/37059

6 Likes

On the upside, someone clearly had a lot of fun writing the Captive/Cultivated FAQ. Some of the examples are hilarious.

2 Likes

I feel as though I came into this sincerely seeking clarity and find myself appreciating a little bit of grey area. I am ready for the thread to end but I’m not sure if I can end it, withdraw it, or allow it to end of it’s own accord… kinda new here… to the forum anyway, not to iNat. Let me know if I’m supposed to end it some way.

1 Like

It will end of its own accord something like 2 months after the last reply.

Since it’s in the General category, you can choose one topic that you seen as the “solution” to your concern, as you see fit

Happy inatting!!

4 Likes

Too scared to pick a solution. lol

1 Like

No solution required! No worries. Hope to see you around the Forum.

2 Likes

Don’t worry about which specific response you pick, you can just choose one that you found helpful…low consequence choice! But it will mean less traffic to the topic and is helpful overall for OPs to choose solutions.

2 Likes

I just explained: a person unfamiliar with the history of the site not knowing that they were planted.

Sorry, yes, you are absolutely right, and I haven’t been awake enough to that possibility. Thanks for reminding me again. Another 2023 resolution for me.

1 Like

For me this is the critical point to make in this discussion. The “casual” label refers to the observation and ONLY the observation. This term captures the difference between, say, traipsing into the woods with your iNat kit and recording wild organisms vs. recording something, say, planted in your yard. Again, as @wildwestnature says well, this is not a devaluation of the work that may have gone into that organism. Nor should it be construed to suggest that those who only record wild organisms look down on people who sometimes record cultivated plants. “Casual” is in reference to the nature of the particular observation in question only (again, the observation itself). At least that’s how I understand it! Cheers.

4 Likes

Welcome to the forum @tkbird!

1 Like

I disagree. Many here are focused on the perception that I am “hurt” in some way by the “casual” label on the observation. Elias had a good example last night. He found Orchids growing in a preserve that he presumed were wild until he was told otherwise. He was then instructed to go back and label them as cultivated. This means they will have the “casual” designation and lose research grade. This, in and of itself, is not a problem. The problem is that non-research grade observations are often obscured from displays of the historical record. This means that a future “discoverer” of the same orchids is less likely to see that they were cultivated and will label them wild again.

I really want to let it drop tho.

2 Likes

But in this case it doesn’t matter if they’re part of recultivation or in someone’s garden, next user can easily post them as wild, as they always do with trees in planted forest, no matter how obvious it is that pines a growing in straight lines, someone will post them as wild, even if their map will be cluttered with previous observations (btw as it doesn’t show when you upload there might be a function like “seen cultivated nearby, are you sure? compare your obs with this one: link”.

1 Like

And since they don’t know… the data will lead them all to believe that past attempts at assisted regeneration haven’t worked and that pure naturalism is more effective than it really is.

The scientist behind a restoration project has GPS for - I planted that clump. And knows which are the new generation of seedlings. We, observers and identifiers, do the best we can.

1 Like