I liked “fragment” specifically because it was so wide. There could be several types of fragments per organism type and most observations are not fragments which means if the taxon was given multiple fragment options they wouldn’t be clicked as often (although this is not necessarily a problem.) By using “fragment”, there would be a reasonable number of observations in the category per species. My idea was that this would scoop up all the leftovers that didn’t fit anywhere else but did fit into a “fragment”. If you were looking for a specific type of fragment, you would have to dig through all the other types (but that would be way better than having no filter at all). Forgive me, I haven’t read if or where this is discussed.
In order to find out what moon snail eggs look like (genus Neverita) you have to dig through mostly egg cases.https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/59357-Neverita/browse_photos?quality_grade=any&term_id=1&term_value_id=7 Egg cases are not eggs, but they are marked as them because it is more efficient (I assume). If they were not marked as “egg”, you wouldn’t find the cases at all.
I will admit, it made it significantly harder to find actual eggs. I don’t know if that messes up my point but I would much rather have “fragment” (at least temporarily) on all taxons than have to wait until specific names for each type of fragment and across different kinds of organisms had been debated and implemented.
It seems to me that if we were going to introduce more annotations for the different types of fragments, it would be beneficial to start by adding “fragment” to all taxons under “evidence of presence”, and then revise it to have more types and different names where needed. That way the many taxons where just “fragment” would suffice, would already be done.
1 Like