True. iNat needs a garbage (pending?) bin for missing data.
And a separate bin for Not Wild.
Putting both together makes no sense at all.
5 Likes
Humans don’t revert to casual because they are captive, they revert to casual because few people (if any) are interested in seeing that data in projects and similar things.
3 Likes
There are other ways things can become casual, too, for example if someone opts out of community ID with a broad ID such as Plantae and it gets marked “it’s as good as it can be” after others try to add more refined IDs. That will be casual, too, but does not mean it’s captive/cultivated.
The iNat definition doesn’t say that, though. I can see where you’d infer it: the wild vs not toggle for non humans is determined by their own action (in species capable of self-directed movement) or chance (seed dispersal, etc).
Humans are already an outlier (automatically marked casual, etc), though, so I see no need to read more into the definition than EXACTLY what it says: in a place and time intended by a human…with no further stimplation re: wheter that human is also the subject of the observation or not.
Now, if staff comes along and explicitly says that’s incorrect, I will modify my behavior accordingly (just as I did when they finally codified that non-planted flora is wild, even if humans subsequently start maintaining it; I may not agree, but I will follow their rules on their site).
1 Like
let’s try to keep the discussion on topic here :)
7 Likes
Ok, back on track. I personally haven’t come across many ‘mysterious’ observations. Though I’ve seen plenty of strange ones, many involving domestic and mutt/manky Mallards. Some really weird birds have bee sighted. Here are a few:
There’s this Mallard with very puffy cheeks and light breast: https://inaturalist.ca/observations/70161024
And this female to match:
https://inaturalist.ca/observations/99464822
One of few Hookbills on iNat. This is a very rare breed and it’s numbers seem to be decreasing. It’s odd that if found its way into the wild.
https://inaturalist.ca/observations/71710579
This ‘hunchback’ duck. Really odd looking.
https://inaturalist.ca/observations/74659040
1 Like
Which is why iNat shouldn’t lump together Not Wild with missing data. It makes the whole casual basket meaningless.
@raymie iNat has a default setting for Homo sapiens. All of those obs are Casual. It is not an observer or identifier who chooses.
4 Likes
Oh, that is so funny! Thanks.
This damned thing has been clogging my inbox recently. Why has a debate begun on this old stupid observation (he asks rhetorically - people will debate anything). Angels. Dancing. Head of pin.
2 Likes
Back to this original question: No, all images or observations can be rationally explained. We just might not be able to settle on one universally agreed-upon explanation, especially when you include the possibility of photo manipulation. I have at least one camera trap image (somewhere) that shows a pair of bird wings flying by but there appears to be no bird attached to them. I’m pretty certain it wasn’t a detached set of wings flying on its own and that the image resulted from the shutter speed on the camera or the angle at which it was shot.
8 Likes
It isn’t about that specific observation. The DQA is commonly misused, and this misuse needs to stop. I chose to do it on that observation so as many people would see it as possible.
2 Likes
You could create a new topic on the use of the DQA. This subject doesn’t fit the current conversation.
5 Likes
That makes sense in a certain way, and totally doesn’t makes sense in another way. That interpretation seems to be implying that if a human is the subject of an observation, it’s assumed to be a captive of itself, which is not possible.
1 Like
I’ve actually already done that.
3 Likes
Oh, but it is.
3 Likes
This one has always interested me, most likely a rabbit but still a neat photo
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/22209456
This one of a mummified chimney squirrel is also quite macabre and interesting
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/24737091
1 Like
Here’s one from today: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/112266096
1 Like
That desiccated squirrel carcass is really kind of neat. So well preserved.
3 Likes
The observer seems to think they saw a werewolf… https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?reviewed=true&taxon_id=40151&place_id=6857
This is a really odd observation too: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/101971894
1 Like