How many of the same species do I post if I see it on a regular basis?

I think that is a hugely important point for this wonderfully diverse community of iNatters to keep in mind!

8 Likes

Maybe I’ve been doing this wrong, but if I add an immature observation, I come back and add progression photos as the specimens mature. Should I not do this?

Unfortunately, yes, according to iNaturalist guidelines as they are currently written, each different day that you document the individual needs to be done as a separate record.

What I do is add the new images as a different observation, but paste a link in the description to the old observation to establish the connection.

7 Likes

I have been wondering the same thing. So I’m glad that you asked this question, thank you. There are some great answers which are helping to clarify things for me but also giving me ideas on what can be useful for the scientists and researchers using this information.

3 Likes

@graysquirrel @donnamiller Cassi made a reply above that has several links to methods to “connect” related observations. I’ll repeat here the link to the method I use, as it is quite versatile and flexible in how and what it can be used for:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/using-the-field-similar-observation-set-for-linking-observations-of-lepidoptera-when-raising-on/1018
In particular, where there are several observations for the same organism, this method allows you to quickly access a search result that shows all of the group.

2 Likes

I sometimes take a photo of a sedge in the field, then bring a specimen home with me. Then I take pictures of the important traits (like the achenes and perigynia) at home. There could be a difference of several hours by the time I get home and take those secondary photos. But I do combine everything into one observation.

The way I do it works for me because I get a location and photos of the sedge in the natural environment. & the other photos are often essential for ID purposes. I usually am not equipped to take photos of the achene and smaller plant parts in the field.

My question is: Do I need to stop doing this?

4 Likes

No, that’s normal practice to include those home photos in the same observation as the field photos.

It would only need to be split into separate observations if you did something like plant it in your home garden to observe growing over time.

2 Likes

yeah i do this too. it’s a good way to capture the plant in its living growing form AND to get better photos of smaller things easier to find indoors. It’s not a problem as bouteloua said unless you grow it for a while or something. i do that occasionally too but i don’t add it to iNat usually.

4 Likes

I’m a biochemist and new to iNat. But science is science and with with the deep data gathering possibilities that iNat provides, in my view all data is useful as long as it’s date/location stamped regardless of repetition. As individuals, we may get bored by looking at the same thing, but the more there is, the more statistically confident we can become of important trends in nature. We have the opportunity of becoming “observation robots” where AI (or those who know how to use it effectively to ask the right questions) becomes the analyst. Times they are a changing fast and the more data helps machine learning get better. I just retired and am rather enjoying being an observation robot :-D

6 Likes

Ellison101, I’d say No to putting different sightings in a single observation, unless you know for sure it’s the exact same individual.

For example, I might post photos of a specific native tree in my yard throughout the seasons so others can see all phases of the species. I know for sure it’s the same organism because trees don’t move, so all its photos could all go in one observation. I can’t say the same thing for the armadillos under my deck, so each one I see is posted in its own observation.

If I were to include pictures of different trees of the same species under the same observation, I run the risk of confusing people if one is misidentified. Also, a person looking at an observation has no real way to know which individual is which; that can be confusing. Also, putting multiple organisms in one observation reduces the chance that a misidentified photo will be spotted. That could really mess up the AI.

That said, I don’t know if that approach fits the iNat model, because an observation has one date. It could really confuse people to see a leafless tree in an observation “made” in June.

Right, definitely don’t add a photo of the same tree from December to a June observation. Each “encounter” with the same individual from a different date should be a separate observation. If you must combine them, please manually remove the date.

3 Likes

Thanks. I’ve been keeping them separate observations and just mentioning in comments that I’ve observed the individual before.

3 Likes

I stumbled on to this topic by accident, and have lots of questions. I visit the same riverbank bush every day, and would like to make some type of inventory of numbers of individuals. The problem is that I can’t tell individual birds apart - although I know the ‘usual suspects’ who stick around all winter by species, I don’t know if they are the same birds or not (these are mainly White Breasted Nuthatches, Black Capped Chickadees, and Downy and Hairy woodpeckers. I can say that in the summer they seem to go away some place, and return to the area in the fall. I’d also like to identify individuals, but I don’t know how. Since they are not always around on a certain day, it means that I might get a Downy Woodpecker shot once a week, but may get Chickadee observations several times a week, but I don’t know how to tell any of them apart. If anyone has any advice on this topic, I’d like to hear it!

banding would be the clearest way to tell, but if none of the birds are already banded and you are not in a position to be able to band them (requires catch and release), then that option is not on the table! If there is a tendency to leucism or other abnormalities that might be used to distinguish, then careful study of the photographs may reveal such characters.

Outside of the above, I think regular 5-minute bird counts at consistant times of day would be of benefit, at least as far as numbers over time.

1 Like

Distinguishing individual birds by sight can be impossible. People doing certain kinds of studies can apply for permits to band the birds. To put leg bands on them so they can be recognized. Standard bands have a very small number so the bird can be ID’d if recaptured. For some kinds of studies, people put on two or more bands of different colors so the bird can be identified individually. You can get a permit for banding for a research project or for education, but either will require some thought.

1 Like

@kiwifergus Thank you both for replying. You have confirmed what I already suspected - idenifying individual birds is difficult. I have no experience with banding, so I suppose the 5min bird count might be the best option. I assume I would not need photos, just a record of how many birds or calls I see/hear?

I think eBird is a better place for the kind of survey you’re talking about. It’s much better setup for making lots of observations of the same species without photo evidence, and has good functions to measure level of effort, and to indicate that you reported everything present.

Thank you. I have not joined eBird (I’ve heard they are kind of snarky!), but that sounds like a good plan. These damned birds move about so fast it is hard to get a formal record of them.

I would not say Ebird as an entity is snarky. Like many cooperative sites, Wikipedia, Wikidata etc it highly depends on the individual monitor/curator etc and how they approach their work.

Ebird has a regionalized curator model, so if your local reviewer is cool, you wont have any issues. If the local reviewer is from the ‘section 4, clause 2, subclause 16.4.6.b on page 61 of this blog post clearly establishes how this is to be done, and you did not follow it’ model then it can be maddening.

2 Likes