Such as leaf mines… see this one, for example: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/189291646, or tunnels of wood boring insects such as this:https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/202345535.
Yes, mollusk trails like this are another example. (You can find similar gastropod (snail or slug) feeding traces on fungus, such as this one: [Class Gastropoda https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/197490163).
OK, we’re piloting a new Established annotation, as well as four new Evidence of Presence annotation values.
EDIT: oh, and Sex should not be an option for “unknown” observations now.
16 Likes
To the PS = had a pink beach blob a few days ago. I think it was a ‘lifeless’ rock. Is it a male rock or a female rock? Wait, what?
Delighted to see that change had happened yesterday - thank you!
PS it’s a tropic bird egg
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/203182433
Now we have “egg” both in “Evidence of presence” and “Life stage”. I marked both in https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/121869520, but I’m not sure if that is the intended usage.
Life stage if you expect it to hatch - for phenology graphs.
Evidence if it is bits of shell - to avoid muddling that phenology.
Depending on the pictures in the obs.
That’s fine.
Hi, I tagged up thousands of leafmine observations with ‘Track’ in the last couple of months for UK diptera, lepidoptera, symphyta and coleoptera and I am in the process of creating journals to help with IDing connected to foodplants.
It took me a fair while to sort all the observations out but now a new value of leafmine has been added.
No issues with the new value but when implementing the change has any thought been given to sorting the data already tagged? Is there a bulk change than can be completed? Is there a group of people that can help?
Is there a future road map of the ‘Evidence of Presence’ annotation? It is fine going down a specific route but more consideration is needed to the applicable taxon to stop the list becoming unmanageable.
There is now a big gap for feeding signs and for coleoptera bark galleries. separately track is still relevant for invertebrates as there are observations out there with tracks they have made in sand/mud.
Any feedback and help would be much appreciated as it has set back what I wanted to do with my projects a fair bit :-(
Beetle galleries are explicitly included in the Construction annotation, so I think those are covered:
https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/91456-new-evidence-of-presence-values-added
3 Likes
Could we get an annotation EoP: Bite/Sting? It seems like it would be broadly useful across animalia (bed bugs, dogs, jellyfish, mosquitoes, bed bugs, spiders, etc.) Technically, I suppose it’s a specific type of feeding damage, but I think it would be searched often.
I could see where that would come in, but generally “sign” would be just fine to use in that case. Also, it might encourage people to just post their random bites from random things that have no way of being ided. Furthermore, if they used CV they’d add quite a large amount of more incorrect ids. So again, I see where it could be useful, but it might also be counterintuitive.
1 Like
Actually, let me modify my suggestion to something a little more broad - EoP:Skin reaction (or something like that) so that it can encompass both bites/stings and rashes from poison ivy and the like. I think it would be helpful for helping to distinguish the difference.
Our version of poison ivy rash
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/207556214
oooh, I can’t “like” this!
1 Like
Please add “worker” as an additional term ID value under “sex”.
This change should apply to at least the wasp subfamily Vespinae. I believe it may also help scientists who work with other groups of eusocial insects (including some bees, ants, and termites), but I cannot speak on their behalf.
I know this change has been requested several times (in this thread and elsewhere), but - as an entomologist who specializes in social wasps - I would like to reiterate that this change is necessary for the sake of good data collection.
What change is being proposed?
The term ID value “female” should be removed, and the term ID values “worker” and “queen” should be added. If removing “female” is not practical, “female” can stand in for “queen”, and existing annotations with a term ID value of 10 within this taxon should be cleared so that they can be properly sorted between workers and queens.
This change should only apply for subfamily Vespinae (unless other entomologists petition for the change to apply to other groups of eusocial insects as well).
Why is this change important?
Wasps in subfamily Vespinae are eusocial, which means they have a rigid biological caste system that consists of queens, workers, and males (a.k.a. “drones”). Workers have a distinctive morphology and coloration that makes them easy to differentiate from other castes in the field. For example, here are photos that show a queen and a worker of Vespula squamosa.
Annotating workers separately is important because they exhibit very different behaviors and phenology compared with queens and males. In temperate and boreal climates, queens are the only caste to survive the winter, and they are the first to emerge in the spring. The queen lays eggs that gradually hatch into workers over the summer. Currently, workers and queens are grouped together under the single “female” annotation, which makes the data basically unusable to wasp researchers (including me!). I would love to be able to easily document the castes separately.
Why is “sex” the appropriate annotation to change?
Castes in eusocial insects are analogous to the sexes of other organisms. Due to a quirk of wasp biology, all unfertilized eggs are haploid and become male. Queens can be fertilized, so they can lay eggs of any caste. Workers cannot be fertilized, so they can only produce males. Queens and workers have distinct physiology and distinct reproductive roles. By definition, that makes them each a distinct biological sex.
@merav @vynbos @carnifex @tiwane @fffffffff @aputamkiejit @alesbucek @silaseckhardt @nilshelstrom @matthias22
5 Likes
I am generally in favor, but it is a little more complicated to implement:
-
Some Vespinae are social parasites (e.g., Vespula infernalis, Dolichovespula arctica). They have no castes so the ‘female’ category needs to be retained.
-
In some Vespinae species, queens and workers blur into each other (e.g. Dolichovespula maculata). There is continuous size variation from workers (small) to queens (large). Even in our museum database I have them therefore simply listed as ‘female’. On images it is even harder to distinguish the castes because size is difficult to estimate.
-
The same is usually true for Polistinae where sterile gynes (co-foundresses), reproductive gynes (foundresses = queens) and workers are not distinguishable morphologically.
In essence, this needs a species-by-species solution. I would not recommend it for Polistinae but it could definitely be implemented for those vespines that have castes that are readily distinguishable (which includes most species in the subfamily).
4 Likes
Regarding social parasites: I would argue that the annotations “queen” and “male” would still apply. We could simply choose not use the “worker” annotation for those species, even if it is shown as an option. The data quality would not be diminished.
Regarding D. maculata: We can choose not to annotate individuals where the caste cannot be determined from photographs.
Regarding Polistinae: I agree that the change should not apply to Polistinae, since Polistine wasps are not eusocial. I only recommend the change for Vespinae.
A species-by-species solution is not necessary since all annotations are added manually.
2 Likes
The term queen applies only when there is caste differentiation between fertile and sterile individuals. It is never used in the literature that deals with social parasites. It would be very misleading. I don’t think we want to create a precedent here.
What I meant by a species-by-species solution is different choices for different species. The queen/worker categories would not be available for social parasites, only female. I don’t know how difficult or not it is to implement. For ambiguous species we need all three (which could also be the case for species with clearly distinguishable castes, but that wouldn’t be very helpful).
It is ultimately up to staff to make a decision. I don’t have strong opinions on this.
3 Likes
Well, one solution was already suggested:
Meaning that “female” means “female reproductive,” which is the definition of a queen.
1 Like
@jasonhernandez No, “reproductive female” is not the definition of queen but the norm for bisexual species. Workers and queens occur only in species with caste differentiation. Species in which all females are reproductive have neither workers nor queens. That’s how sociobiology has defined the terms for over a century.
1 Like