How do I filter out species that cannot have plant phenology annotations?

I want to add plant phenology annotations to all my observations, and afterward, every observation possible. But it quickly becomes frustrating when pine trees and other plants that inexplicably cannot be given plant pheonology annotations are thrown into the plants who do not have plant phenology annotations.

How do I filter out things like pine trees? Why can’t pine trees have annotations? Why do they show up in the filter if they can’t be given annotations??

1 Like

My understanding is that only flowering plants (Angiospermae) can get plant phenology annotations. So if you filter your observations to Subphylum Angiospermae, that should work.


You could first filter by Angiosperms- doing so would trim out non-flowering species which don’t get annotations. Doing so would exclude spore-bearing species (ferns, mosses, etc) and gymnosperms (pines)- which don’t technically flower or form fruits. The fact that they’re instead given a ‘sex’ annotation option is perplexing to me though.


in some species, each plant will create flowers with only one sex of gametes – ovaries or sperm-production (often pollen). In other species, each individual organism produces both types of flowers, or flowers that include both parts.


and we have asked to annotate pines, for cones. It is ‘fruit’ there are edible seeds.

I come across new iNatters who carefully fill in the gender of the observer (with their silent question - WHY does iNat ask for that?!)

I understand the need for a sex annotation in flowering plants. It’s the fact that it’s the prompted annotation in nonflowering plants (Gymnosperms, Bryophytes, Pteridophytes, etc) that I didn’t understand. Except I’ve just remembered that there are male/female cones in things like Ginkgo, so never mind! :crazy_face:

1 Like

The fact is that all woody gymnosperms (aside from Ginkgo biloba as you mentioned) bear both male and females cones so the “Sex” annotation cannot be assigned to whole plants but only specific parts of those plants. An alternative is direly needed!

1 Like

I’m not a botant, and I don’t know about the strict definition of “woody”, but many gymnosperms are dioeocious:

In fact, dioecy is more common in gymnosperms than in angiosperms to the best of my knowledge.


I recommend not filling out the “sex” annotation for plants unless the plants are dioecious (with separate male and female plants). Just leave that be.


thank you, I’ll try that

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.