Please recheck that, there’s a nymph as one of possible annotations on your observation, not pupa as there isn’t one in mantises.
nymph should be an option for all Mantodea. Without a URL or a screenshot I can’t say whether or not there’s a bug. And as @fffffffff said, there isn’t a pupal stage for mantids.
Then we’d have larva and nymph as options for observations, at class Insect, even though one or the other might not be appropriate for the observation’s subject, correct? I guess that’s what we now do for gall, although there are calls to make it even more open. In my experience it makes sense that we err on the side of gall being more available, even for situations where it’s not appropriate, because there are people specifically looking for galls to identify. I’m less sure that there are people looking for all insect larvae or nymphs and identifying them, but I may be wrong.
3 Likes
I would prefer to add Annotations only to where they do apply.
We currently have Sex as an option on all plants - which only applies to the few plants that have separate male and female plants.
An annotation should NOT be offered where it is sowing confusion for the unwary.
4 Likes
I have searched higher levels to find trapped Syrphidae larvae before…as well as wished to identify Pterygota adults and sift out the larvae if possible. But admittedly, not regularly… as I am mainly active at lower levels.
I don’t see this as being as crucial as having the ability to search for galls and leaf mines across levels.
I’m not sure I see this as a likely source of problems. People who do bother to add annotations tend to be more informed users so any errors in adding life-stages would be limited or open to discussion.
In contrast, there are a lot of observations simply without life-stage annotation. Anything at higher levels has more eyes before going to a finer taxon, so its just a missed opportunity in my book for one of those identifiers to have the chance to add an annotation. Personally at higher levels I have often thought to add an annotation but been unable to do so…and once reviewed I will be unlikely to return to it.
2 Likes
Ok interesting, so there is precedence there as well then…
How often do you come across plant observations with sex incorrectly annotated ?
Often. I have tried leaving forum posts. The iNat response is - not a problem.
There is a newbie on iNat.
You ask on screen for sex.
How many new to iNat people even know that ‘some plants have separate male and female plants’?
So they give the reasonable answer - I am a woman - WHY do you ask?!
And I have no idea how to set about explaining to them. (If you are hiking with me on our mountains I can show you Leucadendron - protea family - male and female have carefully planted themselves next to each other - male cone … and female cone)
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/186152-Leucadendron/browse_photos?order_by=created_at&term_id=9&term_value_id=11
The option should NOT be there, unless it is meaningful. iNat is plant blind.
8 Likes
Not even just for newbies.
I have little to no idea what this refers to… :)
But the people who misuse it do so because they believe it is asking a question of themselves?
If this is the main misuse, then at least I don’t see this happening for insect life stages…
The only incorrectly annotated insect life stages I’ve come across have been those notated as pupa which should be larvae and vice-versa ( not always clear, and an error I have made myself ).
1 Like
What happens atm if a user uploads a lepidoptera observation with annotation larvae and then it gets bounced up to pterygota before making its way to diptera?
Is the annotation retained or lost ?
2 Likes
Some plants have only female parts of flowers on one specimen and male parts on the other, e.g. buckthorn, so only females will have fruits and they need males to get that, that is the minority of plants, others either have flowers with both organs or have the separate but on one plant (like Carex), so most plants don’t need sex annotations at all.
4 Likes
Should a request for adding a life stage of eggs to a phylum be made as a curator flag?
1 Like
4 posts were split to a new topic: Are there redundant observation fields, and if so, should they be merged?
What phylum is it?
Should be retained.
2 Likes
Sorry just noticing this now. I’m a little off grid. I’ll have to look back and try to figure out what I was looking at. I’ll get back to you.
Hello everyone, I would be interested in seeing a new annotation under “Evidence of Presence” for animals a “Nest” (or a better word to allow a more general description) option especially for animals such as wasps, bees and birds as currently those observations don’t fall under any “Evidence for Presence” but I often see users mark them as “Tracks” or “Molt” which the observations are neither.
5 Likes
apparently we are supposed to use ‘tracks’ for the other evidence
1 Like
Are we? When I looked at the definition of tracks it says “footprints in dirt or snow”. If it is to be included then would it be possible to change the definition to clarify that other things such as hair, nests, est can be included in that category .
1 Like
If you check, nest was asked to be added before, and yes, ppl shouldn’t use “tracks” for that.
Somewhere in this long thread that was said - use tracks for all the other evidence of presence.
I’m pretty sure it was said never to use tracks for something that doesn’t fit description of the field.
5 Likes
Thanks, for letting me know everyone.