Like most people on iNat, I post lots of pictures of organisms that I know little to nothing about. At first, I relied on others to refine my ID’s, often not being sure of anything short of what Order it was in. As time went on I realized that I could probably refine some of the IDs myself, since there’s about a bazillion Needs ID observations of Plants or Insects just in my state. After stumbling around in the dark for a while (what’s the difference between hairy and glabrous?), I came to a startling (to me) realization: Sometimes the reason that my photos never got an ID wasn’t because it wasn’t possible to ID that taxa from photos, but because the knowledge on how to ID that tax was out there, just not on iNat.
That might not sound mind-blowing, but to someone used to birds, where the combined knowledge of countless experts with decades of field experience is available in dozens of field guides easily accessible to the masses, it did blow my tiny little mind. If the info I was looking for didn’t exists in a field guide, I figured it didn’t exist. Now I realized that I could go look it up in an obscure paper printed as a monograph in 1904 and ID my organism from a black and white hand drawn figure. Or, if you’re lucky, a more recent paper with full color photos of the entire organism, complete with annotations on what the diagnostic features are.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that iNaturalist was the vehicle for putting me back in touch with my childhood wonder, where I wanted to know what everything that I saw outside was, and through that I realized that it might actually be possible to figure it out for myself. The Computer Vision has helped enormously, giving me a place to start when I had no idea what to even search for. The plethora of dedicated identifiers have helped even more, letting me know when I was way off base, or operating on old or faulty assumptions, or just pointing me in the right direction.
So if no one identifies your photo, take heart. It might just mean that there’s an empty space for you to become the expert that iNat needs.
As someone just starting to go down the same path, this was a very heartening post to read. One thing that I particularly want to highlight is this:
I’ve been genuinely blown away by the conversations I’ve had with many identifiers on iNat. The casual comments, intricate explanations, local knowledge, general encouragement, and more have gone a long way towards helping me improve as a naturalist and–more importantly–continue to increase my love and appreciation for all of the natural world.
I also find that random “throw-away” comments can often provide great direction for where the empty spaces still are! Little notes like “this is probably Species x but I’m not very familiar with this group” have been my inspiration for running down many a rabbit hole hahaha
I’m trying to become the expert for North American Ripiphorus beetles. When I saw the first one in my garden, I thought it was a wasp! The second required finding a paper from 1929 to identify.
I’m fascinated by those beetles too, and I always get excited finding them. You’ve helped me ID a few, and now my goal is to photograph all the species present in California.
Yes, but… unless someone else happens to be interested enough in the same taxon to go read that same obscure paper, you won’t get any confirmation of your ID.
I have yet to see anyone follow up such a citation. Besides, the consensus I see here on the Forums is that most people who get into identifying go for fast and efficient, developing copypastas and keyboard shortcuts that let them identify more observations faster. Following up a citation would interrupt their workflow.
What I have learned in the forums is to avoid use of “all” statements. “All identifiers” etc. So one going more slowly would see it. Just like the beetle identifier who caught it, who took the time to make the citation.
And it is such a specialized beetle, I guess somewhat rare and I gather hyper local, that 2 years later when I felt qualified to identify my own Observation, I returned to do just that. Eventually someone else will show an interest and sweep through again. There are 31 observations. 28 are mine. I can be patient.
Developing methods to more efficiently deal with common situations does not preclude taking time to research uncommon taxa or more difficult cases. There is no contradiction here. I know for a fact that many IDers do both.
I also know that just because someone links to a source or provides identification information in an observation does not mean I will necessarily follow up, but this has nothing to do with pursuit of efficiency. It may be that the taxon isn’t currently of enough interest to me that I want to do a deep dive into how to identify it. Or maybe it is of interest but I’m not at a point in my own knowledge where I can make use of the information provided. With the exception of working scientists, most of us ID what we happen to be in the mood to ID, based on our own particular interests – this may or may not overlap with the taxa and regions that are most in need of attention.
To the discussion on posting old papers and references - I do this too! I think occasionally other people read them, but I have also found them super helpful for myself when revisiting a species/genus/family later on. Since I really enjoy determining marine gastropod eggs and unusual observations in general, I will often go looking for a literature publication to inform my ID and then I will cite it in the ID I provide.
I do also read other people’s sources :)
If someone takes the time to provide me with a citation on identifying a species, I always look at it. That is how I found Heiner Ziegler’s incredible site on Costa Rican moths.
I’m here to learn how to better know what is in my local ecosystem and learn how it interacts with my work in reforestation. Why waste an opportunity to learn something new?
Agreed! I really appreciate it when someone takes the time to cite a source or guide. I always review and try to bookmark those that I am likely to encounter again.
I am not identifying others, just my own. And that can of course take some real digging. And lo and behold, I’ve had two instances of identifiers recommending citations to me and I have greatly enjoyed them both.
And of course, as pointed out, the Forum members are but a tiny fraction of the iNat identifier “ecosystem”. To claim “all” is folly anytime but especially here.
I’ve found myself on other sites, which link to articles I have gone to read. I must have been a rabbit in a former life…
I can relate to @david99 in many ways. And even if there is some kind of friendly expert on iNat assisting with identifications, you get to a point when you want to do this yourself.
And it is very cool if you would provide the way to your identification to other iNat users - making a comment with reference to the key or paper you used to arrive to ID.
Identification aid for anything that it is not easily looked up in a field guide is essential when it comes to increase ID rates.
Exactly. Sometimes it’s just a matter of waiting until someone else finds the species for themselves and repeats the research. I can’t count the number of times I’ve researched some new moth I found, worked out what it was, and then immediately went to any other observations of the species on iNat and confirmed/corrected them while the information was fresh in my mind. Frequently the only other observations are from just one or two people, sitting there in “needs ID” for years, and it feels good to confirm them. Same happens with my own obscure observations- they’ll be up for a few years, then suddenly someone swoops in and confirms my ID on some super obscure species because they just found it as well, and mine was the only other one on the website. Patience is key.