Let's Talk Annotations

[jasonhernandez74]

@lothlin

Do you know how USEFUL it would be while identifying to sort by only things that have supporting microscopic imagery?

By microscopy, do you mean only under a compound scope or does a dissecting scope count, too?

@spiphany

I agree that the sort of information relevant for fungi is better handled by observation fields, because they offer more flexibility than annotations.

@spiphany

But the proliferation of nearly identical observation fields and the lack of integration into iNat’s interface (difficulty finding observation fields or searching for observations that use them) is absolutely a problem.

And there are already redundant observation fields for some of these. For substrate alone:
Observation field: Myxo substrate · iNaturalist
Observation field: Myxomycete Substrate · iNaturalist
Observation field: Fungus or Lichen substrate/host · iNaturalist
Observation field: Macrofungal Substrate · iNaturalist
Observation field: Fungus substrate · iNaturalist
Observation field: Habitat or Substrate · iNaturalist
Observation field: Fungi and Lichen: Substrate · iNaturalist
Observation field: Fungi Substrates (fr) · iNaturalist
Observation field: Substrate — Fungi · iNaturalist
Observation field: Fungi Substrate · iNaturalist
Observation field: Fungus Substrate/Host · iNaturalist
Observation field: specified substrate of fungus · iNaturalist
Observation field: Substrate of Fungus · iNaturalist
And that’s just the ones where I could see the word “fungus” in either the name or description without opening the tab.

[lothlin]

Just micrographs, you’re not going to get things like spores, cystidia, basidia, etc under a dissecting scope.

And yeah, that observation field thing is… it’s just wild. There’s so many overlapping ones.

[apusaffinis]

I think the appropriateness of annotations/observation field thing is good to remember, but I would say that annotations are useful whether or not that observer can use them. For some obvious examples - sexing and aging of things like boomslangs (snakes, done by body and eye colour), sexing of Mutillidae (wings), sexing of Syrphidae (eye gap), sexing of Lepidoptera (antennae branching), sexing of wasps (antennae length).

I wouldn’t expect a casual observer to know these, but as an IDer/annotator with some interest, it is very easy and quick for me to add these from the identify page, and get useful information about male/female phenology etc.

[mcarolinalago]

Hola @tiwane , llego a este hilo guiada por @cthawley debido a que mi solicitud de función estaría contenida en el debate sobre Anotaciones que están haciendo aquí.

He leído muchos de los comentarios y pude volver a encontrar funcionalidad al Campo de observación, sólo que no es habitual que lo use porque la mayoría de las observaciones propuestas están en inglés o al menos, no están en español. De todas formas, respuestas como las de @dep , @star3 , @jeremyhussell , @parker_hopkins me ayudaron a pensar un poco mejor este tema.

Creo que es útil poder agregar en Campo de observación los caparazones, conchas (shell) encontrados sin organismos en su interior. Aunque, considero que en el futuro podrían incorporar una de estas denominaciones en las Anotaciones: Evidencia de presencia. Por ejemplo: shell en inglés, y concha o caparazón para español; porque más allá de poder representar algo útil a la observación, si se encuentran sin el cuerpo blando del animal en su interior, realmente serían “la” evidencia de su presencia. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/323894707

¿Tienen en iNat un listado o alguna forma de poder ver cuáles son los campos de observación existentes o sólo los podemos buscar en el lateral de la publicación de la foto?

Entiendo que los campos de observación tienen más que ver con las personas que están estudiando determinada especie. Tal vez sería una buena idea que iNaturalist se comunicara con los usuarios esporádicamente para informar qué tipo de campos ayudan a la identificación y al investigador, enviando links a publicaciones en las cuales enseñen más sobre los mismos y sobre cómo utilizarlos en el caso de querer hacerlo. Para incentivar el buen uso, ya que me parece que a veces marcan en mis publicaciones la Anotación: organismo, cuando no sería el caso. Es algo sobre lo que todavía no tengo certeza… Que haya mas difusión y educación nos puede ayudar a ver mejor qué Campos de observación y qué Anotaciones funcionan a los fines propuestos.

En un momento pensé en ofrecer plantear una traducción para cada campo de observación y para ello hablar con quienes lo proponen, en casos muy especiales, para que la interpretación sea la correcta. Pero, me di cuenta que al ser así, justamente no habría forma de ofrecer esa traducción en la búsqueda de campos.

Gracias, de todos modos por leer mi propuesta y mis pensamientos . Si en algún momento, algo de lo que dije es útil para el buen crecimiento de iNat estaré muy complacida. Lo mismo, si puedo colaborar en algo relacionado con lo que expresé aquí, cuenten conmigo.

[cthawley]

In regards to:

@mcarolinalago

¿Tienen en iNat un listado o alguna forma de poder ver cuáles son los campos de observación existentes o sólo los podemos buscar en el lateral de la publicación de la foto?

See:

https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000191830-what-are-the-definitions-of-inaturalist-annotations-

[sandie43]

as an answer about the fungi, a simple annotation can be used: mycelium yes no/ fruiting body yes / no, spores yes/no. because you can have a mycelium showing without fruit, spores without fruits, and fruit without spores. For lichens, fruiting bodies yes/no, and spores yes/no. this is a simple solution to a complex problem.

And yes a “host” field could be showing for all species/families known to be parasitic or needing a host to grow on / in.

[lothlin]

I just don’t think these are useful fields for fungi.

I still think anamorph/teleomorph/holomorph is probably the most functional one that could be added to fungi (if we are saying the edge cases I posted above aren’t quite right) even if it IS one that would be a bit of a headscratcher for the average user.

@cooperj idk, I’d love your thoughts on this

[cthawley]

Since host is not a property of the organism itself (but another), it would be better addressed as an observation field. There are numerous current observation field for recording similar interactions (host, feeding, pollinating, etc.)

[cooperj]

I’ve had experience in developing several collection/observation data management systems for fungi in the UK and New Zealand. In those systems we provide annotations for anamorph/teleomorph/holomorph. They are especially useful since we abandoned dual nomenclature for fungi (different scientific names for different states of the same species). We also have annotations for the five morphologically different stages of rust fungi. These are the only annotations we use, and they are useful when searching for data, especially in plant pathology. I think most identifiers of these groups understand these annotations, but perhaps not the majority of iNat general observers. I don’t see that as an issue.

[myxomaniac]

I noticed that the current annotation options for Mycetozoa (‘slime molds’) are irrelevant for that phylum: ‘Presence’ (with only ‘gall’ to pick) and ‘Sex’ (male / female) - both don’t apply.

Example: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/324008511

More useful and applicable would be ‘Life stage’ (is that the term used? I only used the iNat interface in german) with possible options like ‘Plasmodium’, ‘Early sporocarp’, ‘Mature sporocarp’ and ‘Spores released’.

[DianaStuder]

Sex - male and female is also offered for all plant obs, because some plants do have separate male and female plants (Restionaceae and Leucadendron for example in my space) but 90% ? do not.

[myxomaniac]

I guess the annotations for Mycetozoa were just copied & pasted from plants, and never really adapted to the other taxon.
I flagged the issue, was advised to ‘request a feature’ here in the forum (which was denied), and now I’m trying put it up for discussion in this thread.

[ellurasanctuary]

I was sent here by a curator in response to a flag I posted against Lichens:
Unlike “normal” fungi where the fruiting body is often the only visible evidence, lichens show a structure which often isn’t fruiting.
As such, I think there should be at least a “fruiting” annotation for all lichens; which I believe are diagnostic and usually easily visible with photo’s.
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, I did a search but it’s a HUGE chat so probably missed it.

[ellurasanctuary]

Further, it’d be good to have substrates annotated, eg
Rock
Soil
Timber

[marsden_allan]

Could an annotation for ‘Feeding Traces’ or something that encompasses it be added, as I believe this would be very beneficial to INaturalist users and researches as some animal families or even specific species can be ID by the presence of the feeding traces they leave behind. For some rare, threatened or nocturnal species this is also one of the main ways of identifying their presence in an area such as the ‘v’ shaped cut marks on trees produced by Yellow-belled Gliders (Petaurus australis) feeding on tree sap or the chews or orts left by Glossy Black-Cockatoos (Calyptorhynchus lathami) as they extract the seeds from the cones of specifically chosen she-oak trees (Casuarina & Allocasuarina spp.), but also many others such as, the seeds or cones opened by parrots or rodents, browsing damage to plant foliage or fruits by herbivores, kills or the fed on carcasses and bones from predators and scavengers, pellets of indigestible material coughed up by birds or reptiles, termite and ant nests opened up by feeding anteaters, or the small holes dug in the ground by many animal species that feed on underground invertebrates, buried eggs, fungi, roots or tubers.

[norah_tempus]

I would find something like this very useful! Lots of insect herbivory (and carnivory!) that can’t really be annotated at the moment.

[donna165]

Could that come under ‘Track’?

[norah_tempus]

Not under the current definition. The track annotation definition is, “Impression in ground or snow made by organism”.

[asteroidowl]

Possibly connected to the “feeding traces” comment above, but it would be helpful to have an annotation that includes owl pellets. I’ve been going through the owl entries unchecking “track” and entering in an observation field that covers owl pellets. BUT, it would be helpful for people to have a clear idea of where to put them in an annotation. The annotation would allow for people to search for owl pellets from the photo pages, instead of having to search via the observation fields.

owl pellets aren’t tracks, as the iNat definitions go, and they aren’t scat.

[f-sundw]

An annotation of anamorph/teleomorph/holomorph would cover this and be relevant for all fungi at the same time, as suggested by @lothlin

I dream of this annotation being added, so many observations showing anamorphic stages of fungi are lost amongst teleomorph observations. I feel like if we could have any field for fungi (as useful as microscopy: y/n would be) it would be this one!