Recently I was tagged to identify this Araucaria tree in New Caledonia. After initially turning it down because I don’t know anything about the New Caledonian species, I decided to look into it as a distraction from studying for the MCAT. I saw that the location was marked as being a nature reserve, and I used Google Maps to find the altitude of this specimen. Using that information, I was able to come up with a plausible to-species identification.
However, because I identified it as a species that is vulnerable, the location auto-obscured. Now, no-one else can use the location to corroborate my ID (I later put the reserve in a comment for this sake) I expect that for many species, elevation plays an important role in what species are plausible in that location, as it is with genus Araucaria, and the obscuration square is large enough to contain many altitudes. I also used a map of Araucaria species from New Caledonia and saw that near the location of the observation, there were many individuals of just one species. Thus, both the location and elevation were very helpful as there are over a dozen New Caledonian Araucaria that look quite similar. Maybe a trained expert could identify them just by the actual photo? But as for me, I relied on the location for 99% of making this observation, and without it I could not have provided a species-level identification.
I’m not sure if conservation outweighs identifiability–probably not. I just wanted to share this experience I guess.
If you think the species doesn’t need to be obscured, you can flag it and a curator can take a look. Generally we don’t obscure things unless they are at risk of poaching.
Species that are not Least Concern are automatically obscured. It isn’t directly related to the danger of poaching, it’s a default setting on the site.
This is, in part, because poaching is not the only potential danger. On many species just the impact of even well meaning people going to look or X species can have majorly detrimental impacts.
Generally it’s best to leave them obscured, even if that does mean some observations don’t get many IDs.
I don’t know if the Macrostrat link gives the right elevation, or if it’s one generated from a random location within the obscuration box, but does 490 meters sound right for what you remember of the original observation?
I ran into the same scenario recently, looking at an observation that would have rendered it’s locality obscured once I put the ID in.
The species in question is one that I do know a bit about, enough to know that it has no business being obscured (as does almost everything that doesn’t have commercial/poaching value). My solution was to copy the locality data before adding the ID, then pasting it as a comment in the ID observation.
AFAIK there’s no rules against individually circumventing the auto-obscure if you feel that it is fit to do so. For example, when I uploaded my herbarium specimens, the label is part of the photo. And it remains part of the photo regardless of what its tag might be.
Site policy is to leave geoprivacy open unless there is a need to obscure (usually a poaching threat, but there are other reasons too). What’s a little confusing is the geoprivacy always defaults to obscure when you add a new status, so you have to manually change it. I know of hundreds statuses added with an unnecessary obscured geoprivacy probably because the person adding the status didn’t realize that was the default or that it could/should be changed.
If this is the case, this should be discussed on a taxon flag and the geoprivacy can be opened.
I do not know enough about ecological conditions in New Caledonia to say one way or the other. I just wanted to share this experience because I am pleased with myself for being able to provide a species-level ID and I’ve never had this experience where I needed such fidelity to identify something. For most Araucaria ID outside New Caledonia, the size of the obscure square is plenty for the locational information I need (general climate and state/country)
Yes
I’ve come across an abundance of plant species in my area that are common, but are listed because a new disease has appeared that targets the entire family, or because habitat loss due to farming has restricted their area, or grazing by a pest animal has deeply affected them, or they’re in a family where everything is obscured, but this species is an exception. In all those cases, they’re not being affected by poaching or by people treading all over them looking for them, so there’s no real case for them to be obscured, and when flagged, that obscuration has been lifted.