So in 2017, iNaturalist introduced annotations , which is a way to add metadata to an observation in an iNaturalist-controlled way rather than relying on the free-for-all that is observation fields. We wanted to start out with some basic ones, such as Sex and Life Stage, as well as Plant Phenology (w…

I am working with an odd situation re: flower annotation. For Waldsteinia (aka Barren strawberries so there will never be any fruit to annotate), the flower stem, sepals and filaments stick around for a long time, well after all petals are gone and after the anthers/pollen are gone. I don’t know how…

According to Missouri Botanical Garden, “Fruits are not berries, but are single-seeded achenes which are inedible, hence the common name of barren strawberry.” Technically, any seed or seed-bearing structure of an angiosperm is considered a fruit.

What about ferns? The new “leaves” annotations do not say anything about fiddleheads and how those should be handled; I think that breaking leaf buds should apply only to leaf buds breaking the rhizome, and thus for easier understanding fiddleheads should be considered. Also, sori, spores, or some…

Presently conifer annotations include only “Leaves” and “Sex” in the “Attributes” column. It is my understanding that additional attributes may be added in 2025. I have been unable to find where these possible additions are being discussed? Does anyone know??

This is the main thread for discussing ideas for annotations. I’m unaware of a specific/official thread for conifer annotations.

From the recent post about the latest additions for plant annotations: [image] Updates to plant annotations We know that these changes don’t advance mosses and other non-vascular plants at all, or reproductive structures for conifers, ferns, and other non-flowering plants. We welcome continued d…

I have been trying to add annotations but find there are far too many places where I can not. For example the entire fungi / lichen area seems to be ignored. The entire bryophytes seem to be ignored. For trees there is no way to add anything on barks or cones.

You may use observation fields for that and even define your own.

+1. I find that “Annotations” are most useful when they can be applied to the entire taxa that they are associated with. There isn’t a group for example that would include all “trees”, or shrubs that would have some sort of a bark. Observation fields are a really good fit for this, the downside bei…

[image] shroomsnjunk: I think it’s much better than having “wing”, “leg”, “scale” and other specific options. I’m not for or against a “fragment” or “segment” (for arthropods) annotation, but I think “wing” should be added as it’s own annotation regardless. A lot of pterygota can be IDd to fa…

Let's Talk Annotations

General

tiwane July 22, 2024, 10:01pm 724

From the recent post about the latest additions for plant annotations:

Topic		Replies	Views
Annotations that do not fit General	26	3392	February 9, 2020
Adding annotations - does anyone use them? General	89	2249	December 30, 2025
Updates to plant annotations News and Updates	124	4645	January 26, 2025
Annotation Sunday General	56	2083	January 23, 2025
Life stage annotations for “Recent Evidence” observations (e.g. leafmines, galls, juvenile feathers) General	31	2057	November 17, 2019

Let's Talk Annotations

Related topics