“On the downside, I suppose this would create duplicate records, but on the upside it allows photographs of the collections to be viewed.”
This seems to imply that GBIF cannot provide images. That is incorrect. GBIF accept images and many types of collection/observation associated multimedia from any data provider. It is up to the providers to prepare the appropriate files. They mobilise all the iNat images with appropriate copyright and images from many other data providers.
Here is an example of one of our fungal collections with images. Occurrence 1135724271 (gbif.org)
I love that this conversation has touched so many aspects of having museum specimens and old observations on iNat!
I guess here’s sort-of a TL;DR of the topics being discussed, with most of the questions still up in the air on a clear answer (given for convenience, if you’d like to answer or discuss a specific question it’s easy to quote these):
Old photos are allowed as observations on iNaturalist. However, it isn’t clear what the cap is on the maximum age of them (it’s either 100 years or 130 years). Are observations older than 100 years from the present day allowed to go to research grade, assuming all of the information is accurate to the date/location of the original observation/collection? (this was the original topic, the general consensus seems to me to be that as long as there is recent evidence at the time of observation, it is allowed for observations to be older than 100 years)
Are people associated with public collections allowed to post their specimens on iNat, even if there may be an entry for that specimen on GBIF, under certain circumstances? What would those circumstances be (the iNat poster is the owner of the collection or the person who collected them, the ID is still uncertain, etc)?
What are the specific rules surrounding creating an observation when you are not the direct observer? Posting others’ photographs aren’t allowed without explicit permission, but what about cases where the observer is not able to post them? Are there any specific cases where it would be acceptable to post for the observer (the observer/photographer was a family member who has since passed away, or something else)?
If possible, I think it would be great if a member of @inat_staff like @tiwane could weigh in on these questions, as I’m not sure it’s possible or acceptable to make a poll for members to vote on rules such as these.
They shouldn’t do it under own accounts and should create a new one for the name of passed observer if they hold copyrights, at least that’s the correct way, but many don’t care too much, so it’s up to you.
I don’t really have an opinion/answer to this. However, since I am fascinated by fossils, here is a project that appears to deal with it well - https://inaturalist.ca/projects/16560. Old, or fossil specimens are valuable, as they provide some evidence that species x was in location y at a point in time. I feel a note about the specimen should be enough to explain the observation. It may not be recent, but often (like the mountain lion) it can be identified.
However, as I’ve said before, I’m sort of lackadaisical about the ‘rules’.
It’s more like the organism should have been alive within about 100 years of when you encountered the evidence. I think as generally defined or understood, a fossil is evidence of a creature that lived a very long time ago - hundreds of years or more. Whereas if I come across, say a raccoon skull on a trail, it might be a few years old but odds are that the organism was alive within the last century. So that’s what the Recent Evidence of Organism DQA is for. (as @fffffffff basically said)
What you’re referring to is the age of the evidence itself, or its observed-on date, eg the macaque photo. The photo is from March 15, 1959, and the living monkey is the evidence, so it’s definitely recent evidence of an organism relative to March 15th, 1959.
With things like photos from a family collection, the issue is more about what iNaturalist is meant for. iNat is really a place to share one’s personal experiences with nature. It’s not a data repository, and it’s not a place to dump museum specimens. It’s about someone saying “here’s an organism (or track, or scat, etc) that I encountered.” So IMO iNat is not a great place for posting old family photos that you’re not directly involved with, as cool as they are. However, I admit it’s a gray area and if you curate the observations and there aren’t a ton of them, then it’s not a big deal. Just make sure they’re clearly marked, and you may want to create a separate account that clearly states what it’s for and that your account is a stakeholder. Sorry I can’t provide more clarity.
It’s intentional and is there to emphasize that iNat is not a place to post old museum specimens and the like, which people were posting (and posting in good faith, I don’t want to scold anyone). So we added the 130 year cut-off for observed-on date, as it’s the extreme limit of a human lifetime. So theoretically a 130 year old person is able to post a photo they took during their first year of life…
I’d say no. Again, iNat is for your personal encounters with organisms in the “wild” (and yes “wild” can include that cockroach in your house). That doesn’t really extend to specimens you didn’t collect.
Would that mean that my currently uploaded specimens from the 1920’s, or any of my non-iNat uploaded specimens from before 1930 can’t become research grade? All were received in trades, or purchased from estate sales after the passing of the original collector, but none predate 1904 based on what I currently own.
Wouldn’t that mean that here in the next twenty to thirty years or so, it would no longer be possible to add observations of organisms from between 1900 and 1920?
It would mean you better upload them via different accounts, attributed to original collectors. You should only upload observations you made, imo it’s easier to make a table with data and upload to GBIF.
I don’t see why they shouldn’t become RG as long as their collection date and their location are being used for the observation. But it’s best to not put them on iNat at all, that’s not what iNaturalist is for. If they’re already there, don’t stress about it, but iNat isn’t a place for posting old specimens you didn’t collect.
This isn’t really what people should do. It happens, but iNat is not for any kind of biodiversity data. It’s for you to share the things you encountered and discuss them with other people.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The emphasis you often place on iNat not being for data is contrary to my use of the site, and doesn’t make sense to me. Observations are intended as data points, correct? If so, how is iNat not for any kind of biodiversity data? If not, I have been thoroughly misled and see no purpose to uploading observations.