Identification tips for IDs

LOL … no not you … above, but not directly above haha. Sorry for confusion.

1 Like

For the very busy identifiers, maybe with a day job, and a life - yes it is considerate to not tag them too often. I try very hard to only tag for something interesting, or I need your help here please?

2 Likes

Thanks! :-) It’s nice to know others find them useful, too.

1 Like

I agree with @teellbee. I imagine most newbies (like me) rely on the AI to make IDs on their observations. When someone gives me a different or more specific ID, I often go back to the AI system to see where I went wrong, or whether the organism even shows up in the options. I had assumed that the system automatically adds organisms to taxa if the image is good enough and is not already represented or differs significantly from the images already included. I know IDers can be busy, but especially if they see that they are re-IDing the same or similar organisms, they could add notes to the “More Info on iNaturalist.org” page for that taxon. It could also be a note saying “This [taxon] contains numerous unclassified [subtaxa]” or “This [taxon] is undergoing major restructuring.” Those of us who are not specialists may not be up to searching for extensive keys for each organism we observe.
Thank you to all the IDers out there who help us out!

Use the AI as a suggestion. Like another field guide. But we still need to check - distribution maps - can it be here? Blooming time etc. It is up to us to decide if we accept the AI suggestion.
Sometimes AI is quite sure that rock … is a seal.

2 Likes

This principle works in some other groups, too. Arctiinae larvae are “woolly bears.”

2 Likes

What about that explanation is disappointing?

That it doesn’t help you to ID the fish.

I think the message may mean the fish can’t be identified from a photo, or from the particular photo in the observation. That is true of many species. Perhaps, if that is correct, it should be said in the comment but it can get very time consuming for identifiers.

2 Likes

I’ve been trying to do that for bees in my state–telling people what makes a native bee a particular genus, or species if I am able, and why. I often use both technical jargon and translate it into common words and I hope others might come along and learn more too. It’s been fun and I think I see more cooperation and more bee photos because of it.

The CV or AI should always be just a suggestion. Many bees and other insects have mimicry complexes. I often correct people that just chose the suggestion - currently western bees are under-represented, so the CV tries to ID our bees with eastern names out of range and/or time both.

Mostly I hope encouraging people will help get more photos of bees to show up here!

3 Likes

I forget to explain my IDs often, I should probably do that more… Thanks for reminding!

1 Like

Fish can be tricky in the context of iNat, unless it is a very distinctive species or in a species poor region it may require better pictures compared to what you can get away with in for some other taxa. To me the first step in identifying fish is to have the best pictures you can get to start with (hard if they aren’t in hand). After that I’d always recommend trying to determine what family the fish belongs to first (or even order), then you have fewer genera to sort through.

Some my favorite web resources:
Fishes of Wisconsin (super detailed. best for WI, MN, MI, IA, IL, Ontario but worth a look in other places that have the a fair number of the same species):
https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AWFIWUVZSK4EFH9B

Similar to Fishes of WI but more abbreviated and with better pictures:
https://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/fish-id/

A couple of the better image resources on fish bones:
https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/fishatlas/content/default.html
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fish2ic?g=fish-ic;page=search
https://osteobase.mnhn.fr/squelette.php?lang=en&idStructure=1&idTaxon=25

1 Like

Which for some of us is a disappointing situation.

If you ask me how I identified a plant, the answer you get back will very rarely be how I identified the plant.

Imagine someone asks you how to pick your friend Lisa out of a crowd. You picture her in your mind and try to figure out which of her features you can verbalize in a way that might help someone else tell her apart from others. Of course, when you see Lisa you don’t pull up that list of features and check them off for the person in front of you. You recognize her.

6 Likes

Absolutely agree. In the spider world, how do I tell Badumna from Cambridgea…well, the initial reaction is because it just looks Badumna-y as opposed to Cambridgea-y.

The Germans have a word for it - a gestalt - an organised whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.

4 Likes

Here’s a fun related question to think about. Well, entertaining to me at least, your mileage may vary. :-)

Is this a pentagon or a hexagon?

pentagon

Now… did you count the sides?

It’s really obvious in this case how you would translate the gestalt to something purely quantitative, but I think they’re still different things in terms of how our brains interact with them.

1 Like

I agree that there’s a difference between recognizing something through practice and explaining/justifying an identification. Take this plant, for example https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/106087776

I can describe the petal color, leaf shape, habitat, but, as you said

Shameless plug - If anyone reading this wants ID tips to help with Penstemon, message me!

In Britain it is called the jizz, which some claim is an abbreviation of “It just is”.

1 Like

or = general impression

It’s definitely NOT called that in my country LOL.

3 Likes