If you’re not recording common species, you won’t have very many records. Uncommon species just aren’t around in very many places, that’s why they call them, um, uncommon. Most people will focus on the species that they find interesting. They may often be overlooked and not apparent, but very few are uncommon. Now, running across something rare will usually get my interest, but I’m not targeting rare species. The amount of work that I expend depends on the difficulty of getting a photo.
5 Likes
Being a biological-illiterate, common species are my jam! Also, in agreement with other comments, they help to provide a baseline.
6 Likes
Yes.
For many of the reasons stated above, and the fact I just really like some very common species.
Also for things like Asian Lady Beetle, it helps track just how common they have become (at a detriment to native species).
4 Likes
I might’ve used the wrong expression. I mainly meant species that are ubiquitous and obvious, like trees typical to the biome, or gulls at seashore and so on. Things that are obvious by just walking along and which immediately rise to mind when thinking of a place. This, ofc varies according to person.
Same. For me that can mean avoiding overobserved taxa in a given location, which are not necessarily all the common species. There have been many occasions when I got the first observation in my county of what looks to me like a common species, because it isn’t a popular species.
1 Like
I’ve noticed trees and grasses are very uncommonly observed. Perhaps because they don’t have flashy flowers and they’re so common that they fade into the background for most people?
1 Like
I rarely observe trees because most of my observing is in places where the majority of trees were either planted or part of a population that is a mixture of planted and spontaneous individuals. I don’t find it an enjoyable use of my mental energy to be constantly trying to assess whether a given tree was likely to have been planted or not (i.e., whether it counts as wild) so I tend to mostly ignore them for iNat purposes.
I associate grasses with lawns and similar planted and mowed landscapes, which probably tends to color them as not being particularly interesting. Obviously this is a bit of a skewed way of thinking about them since they are also important components of wild meadows. I also find them difficult to ID even when they have inflorescences, and largely impossible to ID when they don’t. They are also not very relevant for one of my major interests – bees and other pollinators.
3 Likes
I observe weeds a bit compulsively because they annoy me and if anyone is ever going to remove them I want a record of where they are. I observe other weeds because I can’t figure out the difference between these three identical ubiquitous weeds and maybe if I take enough photos then I’ll get it. I observe other weeds because they’re pretty. I observe plants I’m affectionate of because I like them, regardless of commonality. I observe animals as they permit me to get a half-decent (really bad) photo. I observe common fungi because I have no idea what they are! I observe common native flora because there’s some small detail I want to take note of (what do the stipules on that pea look like really? what’s the petiole shape of that leaf? what do Pelargonium capitatum seeds look like anyway? so these are Jacksonia stamens, it is that easy to see them! … this other pea doesn’t have - where are its stamens???) or its in a harder-to-identify form (no flowers on the daisy, not even buds) or for distribution or just because I can. I observe pigeons because I photograph pigeons because I know various people who like pigeons.
5 Likes
I don’t tend to observe trees because I just can’t parse them, though I’m trying to make an effort to attend to their existence. When you say grasses aren’t commonly observed, though, do you mean research grade grasses or grasses stuck at monocot or Poales because they’re a difficult bundle of flora to differentiate at the best of times?
Tuliptrees grow all over this place. I’ve observed a tuliptree just behind a lot corner and made a series of observations of one tuliptree showing its vernation.
I was putting stakes on a lot with tall grass and observed what was at each stake, which in one case was grass. I’ve also observed clovers and plantain at another site, and hickory, oak, and beech trees at another site that’s so full of them, there are two streets named for beeches.
I don’t post trees often. Why? Because they’re not very diverse, compared to other plants. Oregon has nearly 4000 species of vascular plants and probably fewer than 30 of those are trees that I’m likely to see in the wild. I’ve posted all the wild trees in my area and some of the cultivated ones. I’ve posted one per species at most parks I visit. I have no strong reason to post more.
You’ve hit on the main reason people don’t post grasses:
Related to that, people have no idea how diverse grasses and grass-like plants really are. (I remember an ecologist bringing one sample for identification of what he called “Ball-headed Sedge.” He had found it all over his study areas – where I knew almost 20 similar species grew.) So people don’t see reason to post more than one or two grass photos. Actually, there are nearly 400 grass species in Oregon + Washington, plus hundreds of sedge and rush species. Lots of fascinating diversity being ignored!
Also, people don’t realize the kind of detail they need to include in the post to get a grass or sedge identified. After repeatedly posting plants that only get ID’d as Poaceae or Poales, they get discouraged and they stop. (You need a photo of the whole plant and details of both the inflorescence / spikelets / flowers and the area where the leaf blade meets the leaf sheath. And you need to know if the plant grew as a clump or spread out.)
Even if you do post an identifiable observation of a grass or grass-like plant, you may not get a quick identification because few of us know how to ID these plants and because we get discouraged so we may minimize working on them. And then that slow response discourages people from posting. (Sorry!)
18 Likes
And it’s worse than that, because the lower the quality of the observation the more experienced the identifier needs to be (because an inexperienced identifier trying to do the job well needs more features to double check against and use to work through the keys and descriptions; an experienced identifier might be able to skip some steps because they know they’re irrelevant here, or understands the shapes even blurred); and the more experienced the identifier, chances are you know better than to dig into the low quality observations and have a dozen good quality observations that will still take you ages to puzzle through on your to-do list.
The unexpected variety is a definite thing though, I recently observed a random grass weed in a crack by the road and it really is nothing special, terribly common judging by the worldwide observations, but there’s hardly any observations of that species locally which I found interesting.
And then there’s the like five restiads I’m pretty sure I accidentally conflated because the male plants all look the same… which at least taught me better than to identify those plants here until I do know better!
Anyway to everyone who doesn’t do this: if you observe a monocot please get a closeup of the plant’s base. I know it looks like absolutely nothing special or interesting or notable and seems like a waste of time but please do it anyway. For me? Pretty please?
8 Likes
I second that!
6 Likes
Common species may seem less exciting to observe, but there’s real beauty in individual organisms. I often try to identify common species from my area since those observations may be meaningful for the observer.
When I observe common species, I often do it to record phenology. For plants that might be bud break, flowering, and fruiting. I live well within the ranges of red maple and balsam fir, for example, so an observation of those species doesn’t add much to our knowledge of their presence. But if I can capture an observation of pollen cones on the fir or flowers on the maple, then that could become important data for the future, especially since we can expect shifts in phenology with a warmer climate. Plus, I find it enjoyable to look for the maples waking up–so to speak–after a long winter.
8 Likes
Grasses are something I struggle with. I can discern there are clearly different kinds; even those that look like you’re regular lawn-variety to my eye (tufts of Dactylis glomerata among smaller grasses always got me). For me, the major issue why I don’t cover grasses that look very… simple I guess, is that I have no idea what I should include in the observation. Doubly so if they aren’t flowering or seeding.
Very relatable! If I’m in an area where there’s nothing clearly identifiable or is full of cultivated organisms, I find a lichen patch stuck to one and use it as the “I was here” marker. :D
1 Like
Would you mind sharing an “exemplary” grass obs that checks all the boxes and is identifiable? Especially if the identification doesn’t rely primarily on the flowering part.
3 Likes
What should you post about a grass to get identification? In general, you should post the following photos:
- The whole plant.
- Close-ups of where the leaf blade meets the leaf sheath. You want to show the ligule (a flap or line of hairs on the upper side of the blade) and whatever may be on the sides or front of this area.
- Inflorescence (where the flowers/seeds are). You’re trying to show the structure/shape of the inflorescence.
- Spikelets. Spikelets are the unit of the inflorescence – what it’s made of, what hides the flowers/seeds.
- The parts within a spikelet. Spread the separate parts on your hand and photo them.
Specialized photos may be needed for some species, but if you don’t know what it is, you don’t know what you need, so start with 1 - 5.
Comment on whether the plant is growing as a clump or spreading out, whether it seems to be annual or perennial, and whether leaves are smooth, rough, hairy. Comment on habitat.
You may need to put your hand against the back of the grass part you’re trying to photo in order to get a well-focused picture.
9 Likes
I try to take a picture of something that I don’t know, which is almost everything. But even then I know something I will take a picture, I like insects, I even managed to capture an interaction between wasp and caterpillar and at that moment the most fascinating thing for me was the interaction
1 Like