I had a coworker give me two P. major specimens. They both look like the same species, except for the notable size difference. Is there a second subspecies in Florida that is not on the site? Or another similar species I am unaware of? https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/255530372 Link to observation/image
1 Like
Welcome to the Forum! That said, this is not a place to get help with identifying your Observations. That is what iNat itself is for.
You also need to separate the two specimens into two separate Observations, so that Identifiers can provide information about each one independently of the other. You could, however, link to the other Observation within your own initial Identification, thus linking the two, asking this same question.
I hope this is helpful.
2 Likes
it’s not necessary to split the observation, identifiers just have to pick one of them to ID, ideally the observer would specify which one they want to ID. But is should not be voted casual, the “Evidence related to a single subject” DQA is for obs that have multiple pictures that are of different organisms, not obs with multiple organisms in one picture
1 Like
Even when the Observer clearly asks for the Identification of both? The Observer literally states: “Unsure if they are the same species or not as they are different sizes. I can reupload if they are different.”
No wonder the Observer has arrived here at the Forum to ask if they are both the same thing, the Observer has no idea only one is being identified!
But if they split them into two Observations…
that is a little bit of a gray area I guess, but I don’t think it’s necessary to make an observation casual unless it cannot be used as an observation of one species, and this absolutely can be used as an observation of one species, by choosing one to ID
Also, I think they are both the same species
1 Like
Could be, yes! But as is is meant to be used for both, so I find your decision to add a second species Identification, with no attempt to answer the Observer’s question either on the Observation itself or here on the Forum, sending the Observation to Research Grade, an unusual choice.
Thus I welcomed the Observer, explained my thoughts, and ticked that until the Observer decided which of the two, right or left, they wished identified. You have chosen to reverse that, and provide the answer
without any further clarification and do so here, on the Forum, but addressing me, not the person asking the question.
If I were the Observer I would be confused.
1 Like
Thanks for reminding me to add a comment on the observation
I don’t think this is the intended or correct use of that DQA option, there is nothing wrong with the observation that requires it to be casual, and causal observations are not typically seen by identifiers. Later when they clarify which one they are trying to ID and it is made no longer casual, it will not be as new an observation, and be less likely to be seen by identifiers who sort by new, so even a temporary vote to make it casual reduces the probability of identifiers ever seeing it. This is why I am against voting casual unless something is actually wrong with the observation
There is nothing wrong with Casual observations. Pets and Cultivated plants are wonderful experiences, for example.
I intend to attend to that Observation and will amend my DQA vote if the Observer decides to make the Observation for one or the other wasp. The important thing is that I communicated with the Observer very clearly.
To be honest, I find your repeated attentions to me alone on this thread disconcerting and so I am going to remove myself and ask that you turn your responses to the Observer.
There is a reason the DQA is worded as single “subject” and not “species” or “taxon”.
If an observation has two different photos of two different individuals, it is appropriate to tick that item as “No” in the DQA.
Since this topic is asking about specific organisms and identification, I’m going to close the topic so that it is focused on iNaturalist and not the forum.