I have been seeing a lot of Obs for bobwhite color varieties, like this snowflake bobwhite: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/181644333 and this tennessee red: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/184191154
Since these varieties are sold to hunters to release and hunt, some end up in the wild, I think it is important to be able to filter out morphs, possibly in some sort of an annotation, so that a person researching wild populations only gets wild type bird obs in their results.
I have seen similar with Japanese coturnix, where people make observations of different colors, but since these are marked as casual anyway, I am not too worried about it.
That said, having escaped varieties of a species that do not normally appear in nature is interesting, (I may make a quail variety project to record this) but is adding an annotation for color morphs/varieties something that could be done?
This would be the job of an “observation field”, not an annotation. Maybe something like the Cirsium horridulum flower color observation field.
Edit: another example: Color morph/phenotype (western honey bee)
I’m not sure what the terminology for animal taxonomy is but in plants varieties are generally both geographically and morphologically distinct, though may intergrade. Basically plant varieties are sort of what subspecies are in animals though some botanists use the rank subspecies the same as variety and that gets kind of messy. Color morphs would be the rank “form” in plants and are mostly just variants within a population. So, it might be good to avoid the word variety in this context unless animal taxonomy defines varieties differently. Morph and form are good though.
I agree that observation fields would be the way to go rather than a project.
Correct, morph would be the appropriate terminology for animals.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.