This is more of a personal moral dilemna and I know there is no set answer to that.
On my observations I only put species which I both have identified and found myself. Now my problem is that I have in my phone gallery two species that are new for my country, these were brought to me physically by colleagues or people who are the original collectors and finders but didnt had any knowledge about the taxa reign. So they brought them to me, and I did the identification, and they are awesome findings, but because I was not the one who found them, I can’t bring myself to upload them. Even if I credit them, it’s not “my findings” anymore. These people have no INat account and won’t have one. I have the pictures, the coords and everything, but I won’t bring myself to, but I still think it’s a shame in a way to not have this on my page.
Same story, I was on a group this spring looking for morels, I was the only one with the capacity to ID them down to the species. I didn’t find any during the day with the group but other members of the group found some (and this was a small zone, im just unlucky with morels. I didnt find any but in occasions I missed them by like one meter before a group member found them), which I identified and took pics of and took the coords of. But still, because I’m not the one who found them I can’t bring myself to upload them. I don’t know how you people deal moraly with this issue of legitimacy.
Personnaly I have some guidelines concerning what I upload, I upload only and strictly Fungi (and Myxo), only when I have the ID down to the species, only when I can make relatively satisfying pictures with good specimens, and only when I’m the one who found it in the first place. If someone on a trail finds it before me, even if it is just by them being one meter farther or me having missed the species by 50 cm, then it’s no longer “my finding” and I can’t allow myself to put it on my INat.
What’s your way of approaching this issue ? I’m interested in knowing how other people do and what’s the way of thinking that resurfaces more often.
Did you see the specimens or only photographs? If you saw the specimens, you have interacted with them, which fulfils one of iNaturalist’s main requirements. I advise you upload the photos giving credit to the people who found the specimens and who photographed them if not you. To make them useful records, give the date and place where the specimens were found rather than where they were shown to you.
Someone uploaded some of my pictures without my consent but, he put my name as copyright.
So, for me, no big deal if you mention that it’s not your work. Now, I would ask before putting the name of the people. You have to respect anonymous right I think.
To me, iNaturalist is not a “game” where “my achievements” are measured against others, it is a database of life found wherever it is found by whoever.
As long as the (non iNatting) finder can positively identify where s/he has found the specimen and agrees that it is recorded on iNaturalist, I think it is legitimate to record it.
I get your hesitation somewhat, every person has their own frame for how to use iNat. For me iNat also serves as a personal nature diary.. I love scrolling through personal maps or species lists which take me back to the places and species I have seen.. often I have rather vivid memories of that moment, where it was, what I did, how I felt.. I love it. Including observations made by others at a place I never have been would definately at least interact with this purpose.
That is why I personally would also not include observations made by others in the field and presented to me somewhere else. However, if someone else would show me what they found in the field I will totally include it as well, as I now have my own memory of where this organism was spotted.
In cases like you describe, where it would just be a very interesting data point to include the observation, I might go astray from my ususal pattern, though
Если вам принесли образец - то имеете полное право сфотографировать и выложить на иНат.
Если это большая редкость - то надо писать научную статью и, в разделе благодарность, обязательно указать, кто именно их нашёл.
Если вам показали или прислали фото - то тут уже обязательно надо спрашивать разрешение автора фото, как он планирует распоряжаться своими авторскими правами.
99.9% of my observations were made by me at the time and place recorded, but a handful are geo-tagged, credited photos sent to me by family members or a couple of friends who, despite nudges, have never become active iNaturalist participants. For me, my iNaturalist observations are a personal record for memories, but they are also a record of what-occurred-when for the benefit of others, so I include these few verified observations. I would find your “extra” observations interesting, but it’s completely up to you whether you post them. One thing you might consider is making a tag in the tag field to designate those few, so that you can always separate them from your main body of observations.
I personally have no issue with posting observations of organisms someone else spotted as long as I was there and also saw the individual. Sometimes it’s just chance who sees/recognizes something first. Naturalizing is often a team endeavour (one of the reasons it is often more fun to go out with others as opposed to alone is that you see/learn more).
I don’t really post observations made by others (can’t remember if I have absolutely never done this, but I don’t remember having done so). iNat’s guidelines say that this can be done infrequently as long as credit is given, so if there’s an observation with high scientific value, you could consider doing it.
This depends on scale. It is OK to post occasionally photos of organisms other people collected or photos other people took. Do say who collected/photographed it. Make sure the date and place reflect where the organism was originally found. It sounds like the photos you are working it would be a valuable addition to iNaturalist data.
You have the personal rule that you post only what you can identify to species and only fungi (in the broadest sense). That’s OK. iNaturalist doesn’t require that. Many people use iNaturalist to identify organisms they see and can’t identify. That’s OK too.
If a specimen has been brought to you, you have every right to photograph it and upload the image to iNat.
If it is a great rarity, you should write a scientific paper and—in the acknowledgments section—be sure to specify exactly who found it.
If you were shown or sent a photo, however, you must ask the photographer for permission and find out how they intend to exercise their copyright.
I upload plenty of observations that I don’t know what are. Several days ago I was in the woods and heard a bird I didn’t recognize; I recorded it and uploaded the observation, which is still identified only as Aves.
Why? One of the main purposes of iNaturalist is to provide the forum for discussion of identification. If you only post the things you know already, you are missing out on learning how to identify the other things you see.
iNaturalist is not a census:
When there is field of poppies, one can take photos of the field and details of only one. One observation, thousands of poppies.
A large orchid grows by a path. A lot of people take photos and upload it. Hundred observations and a single plant. Same happens to a bird nesting by the trailhead.
The observation is a record of your personal experience. You’ve seen the morel in the field, that is your observation. You can give credit to whoever found it if you want to and the finder is happy with you mentioning them. I think you need to ask, iNaturalist observations are open public records.
I sometimes post for family and friends. They are not interested in maintaining accounts. So, I ask them if it is OK; they share the pictures; I post them and credit the people. If I see an animal/plant while with other people and take photos, I upload the observation regardless of who saw it first. Like your colleagues, my group is unlikely to post the observations anyway. I’ve also seen people who iNat together upload the same animal/plant where each took different photos–then they link the observations. It’s up to you, of course, but if you have permission to use their photos or have photos of your own, I don’t think it’s an issue.
IMO, if you directly saw, handled, or otherwise had direct sensory experience with the organism, it’s fine to post, even if someone else brought it to you. Especially if you have an accurate time and place for where they collected it!
I think there may be some confusion about this thread. It is not about whether you know what you are submitting. That is what the iNat community is about. This thread is about you posting an observation that you did not make. Using your example, it would be like if somebody else recorded the bird call, they sent it to you, and you posting it.
There is nothing wrong as long as you have observed the organism and not only someone else’s picture or sound. It doesn’t matter if someone brought it to you. With the correct coordinates you should consider them as wild (even though they are captured in that moment)
Here is how help says it:
„Photos or sounds attached to observations should include evidence of the actual organism at the time of the observation, observed by the user who is uploading the observation."
I’ve seen individual organisms on iNaturalist that were photographed by multiple different people, and so have multiple observations, this is fine. Nobody has any ‘first dibs’ over observing a particular organism. I would refrain from uploading photos I did not take myself, I think that’s really the bar. But in the case of a specimen that was given to you for inspection that you yourself photographed to document, I do not see any reason you should not upload it with your own photos and respective identification. Of course, with the correct coordinates, date, and due kudos to the collector who passed it on to you for study unless they would prefer anonymity.