What is an appropriate way to record the date/time that a sample was observed under a microscope? Consider these situations:
I see some moss on the ground and collect a small sample of it. I later observe the sample under a microscope.
I go to the beach to collect some seawater. When I reach home, I observe the
sample under a microscope.
The time of microscope observation could be hours or even days after the time of sample collection. For example, if there is a very long walk from the beach to the microscope.
From my understanding, in the case of the moss, the iNaturalist observation date/time should be the time when I first notice the moss on the ground. In the case of the seawater, the iNaturalist observation date/time should be the time when I collect the sample of seawater. But how do I record the date/time when I use a microscope to see and photograph an organism in the sample? Is there a standard observation field for this?
I often include microscope photos in my plant photos. I always take a habitat photo to record the location and time of initial sighting and the microscope photos are with a camera that does not record location. So my observation has the time and date of my initial sighting as you suggested for a moss.
For the sea water example, I would suggest a habitat shot to record the initial time and location and then include the microscope photos. I usually put the habitat shot last.
Now to observation fields. If you type “micros” into the Observation Fields space, a heap of possibilities pop up; take your pick. I didn’t know about them until I went looking for you. I may start to use them!
You’re right that the date, time and location recorded on the observation ought to be those of the sample collection.
Is it really important to record the place and time of microscope inspection and photography? I suppose it could be if the delay between collection and inspection has the potential to result in visible changes to the sample. Personally, I would think it is enough to record in the notes field something like “photographed 6 hours after collection”, and even then only really if it has some potential significance.
It depends. When I collect lichens and photograph details later at home I add it to the orriginal observation, it could be also months after the observation. When I collect something that grows, like Charas for instance, I use the date of microscopy but I mention that its from sample collected at original date and link to original observation. When I do microscopy, say some hay infusion, I use a date of microscopy but I mention that it is from a hay infusion and the date I started.
This is something I’ve been wondering about myself for quite a while now. I found some old hand-labeled microscope slides in the botany teaching collection that I think would be worth sharing (e.g. leafy liverwort showing all the characters needed to ID to species - some of these would be great as taxon photos). I’m assuming a now retired professor or maybe a work study student made them for class. However, I only have a rough idea where they came from (could do a county-wide circle for location) and don’t know when the samples were collected. So far I have refrained from putting any of them on iNaturalist because I’m unsure how to mark them. Put them up with the date and location of microscopy and then mark both of those as “inaccurate” maybe?
While I agree these photos could be useful, you shouldn’t upload them at the date/time of collection. That would only be appropriate if you were the original observer. For anyone who wants to upload observations of historical specimens for which they aren’t the original collector/observer, which really should only be done in limited quantities, they should be uploaded as captive with the date/time/location that the observer interacted with the specimen (ie, essentially present day). There are a lot of existing threads on the forum that get into this, so I won’t get too into it here. The photos from a casual observation can still be used for taxon photos. You could include the original date/time/location of the specimen collection in the description.
A good general rule of thumb for this scenario is to use the date/time of original collection if you are the original observer/collector and it is likely that nothing has seriously changed about an organism (eg, it’s life stage) from the date of original collection.
So in the cases of preserved mosses, I would use the original collection date/time. I would also include an in situ photo/s of the moss with the microphotos in the same observation. Any in situ (habitat) photos should include the organism (even if it’s just small in the pic). For the ocean water sample, I wouldn’t include a habitat photo at all since it wouldn’t provide info about the specimen (ie, the specimen wouldn’t be visible) and could confuse identifiers or the CV training, though you could take a pic to record the date/time/location and then not add to the observation if that’s easiest.
I don’t think there’s any need to include the date/time the microphotos were taken, but that would be fine to include in the description. I don’t know if there is a standard observation field, but you could search for one or make one if you wish. I don’t think an observation field for this info would be terribly useful myself, but maybe others would find it so.
I agree with @fero that if the photo is of something that is likely to have grown/changed significantly, I would use the date of the microscopy itself and mention the original date of the sample collection in notes/comments.
Although I agree that good micro images of liverworts etc would help with ID, I think it is best not to try to submit these particular ones to iNaturalist. It doesn’t sound like the actual collector is known, the locality and date aren’t known, so their reference value is really compromised, and they don’t align with the iNaturalist mission of documenting a person’s interaction with nature. Luckily, more and more people are submitting micro images of their current finds, so those taxon images are filling in gradually.