Oh oops, I didn’t know foxes came in so many colors! Thank you for putting a name to it!
2 Likes
I see a tiny grey moth ( left center) on the hull. I want to say maybe leaf roller . I also see a brown head with antenna at the top left center of nut hull, can’t id who’s head.
1 Like
https://inaturalist.ca/observations/92671251
https://inaturalist.ca/observations/60684388
I thought these were interesting, I did love the amber fox!
1 Like
i think yeti should be considered some variant of weird bipedal bear rather than a humanoid. Both beacuse it looks as much bearlike as human (evolutionary convergence may account for hominid affinity traits) and because i think i’ve heard some ‘yeti skulls’ in monasteries were genetically found to be bear. My totally unsubstantiated conjecture is that the yeti is or was real, but is the descendant of polar bears who found their way to the Himalayas during some ice age, and for whatever reason evolved to be mostly bipedal, perhaps it is useful on the steep slopes or in deep snow. I’ve got absolutely zero evidence to back this up, and no i haven’t seen a yeti :)
4 Likes
What about this one? A hairball on a Vaccinium in a marsh? https://www.inaturalist.se/observations/108359839
As bears often stnd on hind legs to look around, I think they didn’t have to be actually bipedal, people saw them standing up and now they’re giant humanoids.
2 Likes
The DQA on that is fantastic.
I just looked at it, and WOW!
In addition to IDs, DQA is one way to control a cryptid, lest it becomes a Gerald.
2 Likes
Too bad people are misusing the DQA. Did you check out the recent comments on the observation?
1 Like
Yes, but I disagree. This organism, as presented (a butterfly with a real human face), does not exist, therefore the date & location MUST be incorrect, so it is right to downvote them.
But if you agree with raymie & dallon, you could still use one of the other DQA factors in good conscience.
1 Like
I agree with you. The date and location are both inaccurate and there is no evidence of organism. However, marking it captive is clearly wrong and is a blatant misuse of the DQA.
Photoshopped image is not Wild
3 Likes
It is. It is evidence of human, and therefore evidence of a wild organism.
1 Like
iNat’s definition of captive/cultivated is that the organism is where and when a human intended it to be. By that metric, observations of humans are NEVER wild (unless someone is shipwrecked/lost/etc, they are always going to be where some human -themself or another- intended them to be).
So @dianastuder is correct.
1 Like
No, because another human is needed, organism itself can be an alien, but human is another organism that “guides” it’s movements, so no, humans are not captive and it’s not a word to use at humans anyway.
3 Likes
A separate human from one’s own self needs to be involved. Thus the “prisoners or hostages” definition above.
All iNat obs of people - Homo sapiens default to Casual.
Casual is iNatese for Not Wild. iNatese is a language all its own.
3 Likes
That’s not actually true. While a majority of Casual observations are there because they’ve been voted Captive / Cultivated, quite a few are wild but missing dates, locations, or media.
5 Likes