Forgot my camera and phone and i heard a Gavia immer and seen a Sciurus niger (both of which are not documented in the town i live in on inaturalist) and was wondering if i can post species without audio/video and such
1 Like
I think you can make casual Observations, without media, just for your own recordkeeping? (They cannot reach RG without media, understandably.)
6 Likes
You absolutely can. I mostly use the web upload page, but the same is possible on the apps.
If you go to here:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/upload
and click on “+Add”
there is a menu item that says “Observation without Media.” Click that and it will open a little box where you can put in ID, location, date, notes, etc. with no media file. You can do that as many times as you like.
8 Likes
thats fine, i KNOW what i seen and heard, so thats all that matters atm.
Still shaking after that Loon call. 2nd bird species (identifiable) that i heard but not “touched” the first being Brown-headed Nuthatch in North Carolina
3 Likes
Yes, you can:
A: Go to iNaturalist.org click upload in the top right and then chose the + Add button in the top left and chose “Observation without media”
B: Create a sketch of the species you saw and include as a “field sketch” which is a seldom used but very useful feature.
Option B would be much useful for your goal of documenting it within iNaturalist as unfortunately if you mark something without media it is automatically casual and useless except for strictly personal record keeping, I hope they update how casual/captive & cultivated works.
However, if you only heard the bird and didn’t have a recording creating a full field note in a notebook with description of the area, time weather, etc. and including a detailed account of what you heard photographing it and uploading it to iNat, it would theoretically be able to be research grade as iNat allows field notes/sketches whereas if you only choose option A or what other people suggested that wouldn’t be possible.
1 Like
You can also make scientific drawings of things you observe when you do not have a camera with you.
Kudos for knowing what you see/hear! Unless it is a very familiar species to me, I decidedly do not.
3 Likes
well the Loon, i was unsure until i got back home and looked up “Loon Sounds”, but i had an inkling it was, and it was near a river no less.
i ended up finding the “old observation” so i used that to add these 2 species
4 Likes
Thats important for being a birder haha.
Yes just before you sent this message I made a detailed description in a comment.
@anycade3 I highly recommend checking it out so the observations can be research grade.
1 Like
the Sciurus niger are somewhat common, at least 2-3 in this one lil area so i can easily try to photograph one of them if i see them again.
and i wish i was a birder but since i moved here i am now learning what species we have in this town lol. I know a few Osage oranges, Juglans nigra (its treehopper as well) Red-stem Storksbill, Blackstripe Topminnows, etc.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
Continuing the discussion from Is there a way to post species without proof:
I’ve seen quite a few drawings being IDed and considered as research grade. I actually love this kind of illustrations from field journal but I don’t understand how those can be considered as “evidence” from a scientific point of view.
I saw a few comments kind of suggesting it, but I couldn’t find anything in any naturalist info.
Re-opened the original topic. For future reference, please message forum_moderators if you want a topic re-opened.
Also, there are several discussions about this topic already, I recommend searching for them if you haven’t done so yet.
3 Likes
Lengthy discussion regarding this can be found here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/are-drawings-evidence/8595/1
Personally, I consider drawings valid evidence, though I do acknowledge the problem that details may be misremembered if too much time passes after making the observation. People should also always include only those details that they remember, and shall invent none, even if they are plausible.
Scientists have managed centuries with drawings instead of photos, so I don’t see any reason of tightening the rules for this now.
Lastly, I do think there should be higher standards regarding unusual observations, however. If someone observes a wild rhinoceros in Antarctica, I’d want photo evidence of that!
1 Like
Currently sketches made while observing the organism are allowed. Images from memory are not.
4 Likes
Given that this question comes up regularly, perhaps it would make sense to add an article to the help pages discussing iNat’s policy about drawings (both for observers and identifiers)? If there already is one, I wasn’t able to find it.
I want to point out that while iNat allows drawings as evidence, assessing that evidence is often a bit more complex than assessing photos, because it also requires judgment about the reliability of the observer’s account and their rendering (e.g. did they actually see the features in question or did they draw them because they were sure they saw a particular species). It is completely reasonable that not everyone will be comfortable performing this sort of judgment. Here I would remind users who don’t personally feel comfortable assessing drawings that you are not required to ID any particular observation – you can always skip it and move on. I would encourage doing this rather than trying find some way to make drawings casual, as often seems to happen even though they are considered valid and verifiable observations according to iNat policy. The number of users who upload drawings is quite small and these observations are unlikely to have a meaningful impact on the quality of iNat’s data, particularly given that drawings are also less likely to get confirmed in the first place, for the reasons outlined above (higher standards of proof), and drawings of rare/out-of-range species are even less likely to get confirmed.
2 Likes
Thanks, I tried to find more discussion. Somehow I missed it!
The historical perspective is, at best, surprising to me. Although I’m a big fan of historical field illustrations and sketches, I see it as no excuse to consider it as evidence.
Nonetheless, we have a clear consensus so I wish not to open any new debate on a closed topic. If I upload mine, I’ll mark them as casual for a personal stance.
Appreciate the quick replies and shared info!
1 Like
For clarification, does that mean a sketch made later in the day wouldn’t qualify? I was just looking at some fish sketches the other day that had been made the evening after diving (since sketching while diving usually isn’t feasible).
2 Likes
This is impossible to judge from an outsider’s perspective, though.
It takes just as much good faith to assume an observer didn’t draw from memory, as it would to assume that their drawing is true to what they remembered, so I don’t think it would make much difference if all drawings would be allowed. And I think it would do away with a lot of confusion regarding policy.
I don’t mean to unleash the Pandora’s box of AI topic once more, but if I describe a mystery critter to a gen AI and let it doodle up an illustration…does that actually count as evidence? Is it different than a doodle made by a human?
I’m genuinely asking, not trying to stir the pot. Here’s my real-life quirk: whenever I stumble across something interesting when jogging in the forest (usually when my only device is a smartwatch), I record a voice description and later use those notes to check what I saw. Lately, I’ve been turning these species descriptions transcripts into AI-generated illustrations, and honestly, some look pretty accurate…
For clarity: I don’t upload these sketches to iNaturalist, it’s just for my own “field journal” in the a notes app, but it seems that this would fit the description of evidence since it’s made from my memory and recollections at the time of the observation.