New to iNaturalist and trying to help with identifications

General
,
21

If you want to learn a lot about your local fauna or flora definitely ID the unknown list for your state (or kingdom level as mentioned earlier. I had no idea was possible but am definitely going to use it now). Nothing you do is going to hurt anything because it will push the observation into the view of other IDers. Even if the ID is wrong, whoever corrected I it only found the observation because you had added a specific ID in a field they specialized in (they probably are well aware of that particular misidentification too, I know I am in my field). I did this when I started but now I just ID Florida’s marine mollusks. I kinda miss learning about the stuff in my area (I live in TN, I only wish it was FL) so every once in awhile I still do it.

Another useful thing is to look at the highest “needs ID” numbers in your state.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=45&quality_grade=needs_id&view=species
Many species needs IDs cause the species has a lookalike or something but often times they are just super common plants like poison ivy, winter creeper, or Virginia creeper. Be sure to check the species’ “similar species”. If you can’t tell the difference from poison oak and poison ivy (given both exist in your state) move on to wintercreeper or something your familiar with. Unfortunately More people tend to be interested in vertebrates than plants (at least in proportion to the number of observations uploaded in their field) so there’s probably a good reason that salamander doesn’t already have an iD.

In general, Birds get IDed In minutes to hours. Other vertebrates usually take a day or two. Bugs take days to weeks. Plants take months if they even get IDed at all. Same with mollusks, unless they are marine! I’ll be quick to ID that!

1 Like
22

This is an under-rated aspect; especially for plants, most experts in a particular genus will never find your observation if it is not ID’d to genus, or at least family. An expert in a genus will know at least vaguely almost everything it can plausibly be mistaken for (i.e., they might not know the right species but they will know the right family). Predictable (to an expert) mis-IDs are almost always way more useful than vague IDs (as long as you check your notifications and withdraw if you are corrected by an expert). So, in my opinion, it is ok and in fact highly desirable to be bold (as long as you are not intentionally being incorrect) down to genus for plants.
Here are some other examples of decent default IDs:
For birds, it is always sufficient to ID it to ‘birds’. That will 100% get it where it needs to go if it can be ID’d by inat users at all.
Most normal-is looking fish can be defaulted to ‘ray-finned fishes’
For centipede or millipede-ish things, go ‘myriapoda’ by default.
For worms, you may just have to go ‘animals’, unless you can tell if it is an annelid or have some worm knowledge.
For most other insects, it is generally sufficient to ID to ‘pterygota’ (winged and once-winged insects) if it belongs there, and being much bolder than that can annoy the insect people (and you can be wrong in ways you didn’t even know you could, like bees vs flies).
For most other invertebrates with some kind of legs, you can safely go ‘arthropods’.
For mollusks, you can probably just go to mollusks if you don’t know.
For fungi :man_shrugging: idk I just ID it to ‘fungi’ if I don’t know… I don’t get fungi (sometimes, you’ll still be wrong even then because it will be a slime mold you didn’t know about).

10 Likes
23

I would say adding any ID that pushes the observations ID to a lower level, just because you do not know much about the organism in the observation is selfish and unethical… some ppl spend a lot of time in the field making observations, uploading them, and IDing said observations, it is rewarding to see those observations finally make it to research grade, even if your ID had to be corrected to get it there, only for someone to bump it down to ‘needs ID’ with a ‘angiosperma ID’ because thats about as much as they know about what they see in the picture… By all means if you know what you are talking about and think the research grade observation is wrong then correct it, but if you are only adding suborder IDs where the observation is at genus level just because you want to get more observations under your belt then you are interfering with the data iNat is offering to researchers because most of these observations then go from species or genus level to a much lower level and they won’t be picked up when researching that species/genus… So far you have got good advice here, I agree with only use broader IDs if it helps improve on the ID (which includes correcting wrong IDs with a lower classification, but only if you are certain about it), especially unknowns… Also a useful tool when IDing is the ‘visually similar’ and ‘checklist’ filters on the suggestions tab, and it is also useful to learn who the experts are on the different taxon and top identifiers in the area or on certain topics in your area, so that if you can’t improve the ID with the filters then you can at least tag someone with more knowledge on the subject, ultimately the goal for identifiers should be to correctly get as close to research grade as possible, as quick as possible, don’t be the guy slowing the process down unnecessarily… I think one of the rewarding things about identifying is when other users tag you in observations for help (for me it is, although I’m more a observer, so when I get tagged to ID something it is usually a rewarding experience) so ID in a positive manner so other users can see you are useful in IDing certain things and ultimately tag you for help eventually (and trust me there’s always someone who recognizes your efforts or your strengths, if they result in a positive outcome)… That’s my opinion on this topic… from an observers perspective at least

2 Likes
24

A higher order identification won’t bump something off of research grade unless the user specifically clicks a button saying it cannot be identified to the lower taxa. Just throwing a ‘Angiosperm’ ID for a research grade lily or whatever isn’t automatically going to hurt its research grade status.

Don’t get me wrong, its a little pointless to bother, and I think some folks could learn that they don’t have to try to ID everything that comes across their identification page (its okay to skip stuff, folks,) but like, they’re probably learning users. Its fine. They’re not selfish or unethical unless they’re trying to specifically mess with observations.

8 Likes
25

Thanks for the perspective and advice!

1 Like
26

Good points to consider! Thank you @kyle_campbell1 and @lothlin !

27

I have learnt to check what effect, if any, my ID has on the CID.
Did it do what I want?
Does it make no difference - right so - skip that in future.
Have I made the ID broader, instead of finer?
That CID algorithm is convoluted. Very.

I hugely doubt that iNatters rack up IDs for the numbers. There is no ‘reward’. They are better served on other social media with RewardS R Us.

3 Likes
28

I have seen several people talk on the forum (although I can’t remember where) about being motivated to ID specifically in the hope climbing up the leaderboard or competing with a friend. I will admit that I have done this to some extent myself so it is definitely a thing. I personally have no interest in facebook and the kind so this is really the closest thing to social media I have.

2 Likes
29

Over my time IDing on iNaturalist, my personal rules (which need not be yours!) have changed. My current rules:

  1. If it’s at species level or below and I think the ID is right, I agree! Even if others have already agreed. (Things Go Wrong sometimes and this provides insurance.)
  2. If it’s at subspecies and I know species but not subspecies, I add a non-disagreeing species ID.
  3. It the ID is above species and I can make it lower, I add my ID. Can’t hurt, might help. (Except for African plants, where people have their own method that works for them.) If the observation gets lower level IDs that I don’t object to, I may retract my ID because it doesn’t help. Or I may not.
  4. If the ID is above species and I can’t make it lower, I don’t add an ID, because that can make more ID’s necessary for Research Grade. I use “follow” if I want to know what the organism is.

Of course, I violate my own rules if I feel like it, sometimes with the excuse that I’m trying to help students in a botany class. And now that I’ve learned that “Reviewed” hides the observation from me but has no other effect, I use “Reviewed” a lot.

14 Likes
30

Thanks @sedgequeen for this perspective! It sounds like we have to take it on a case-to-case basis sometimes!

1 Like
31

Hi zzravizz,
I’m one of the iNat users whose observations you have been identifying. I think it’s great that you are so enthusiastic about learning about nature. But, if I may be honest, I don’t feel comfortable with you IDing every single observation I make. How can one know so much about fungi after only a couple weeks?
I look forward to seeing what experts (or at least someone with a bit more experience under their belt) say about my observations: whether I am correct or incorrect with the ID I have suggested.
I have been in your situation and made IDs on observations before, which I wish I hadn’t! I’ve made incorrect IDs based on visual information. I suggest viewing people’s observations, which will help you learn, but maybe not making IDs on every single observation you come across. Every time I try to ID a mushroom I’ve found, I realize how little I actually know. And the world of fungi is ever-changing: experts are discovering new things all the time.
I hope this helps you with your question.

4 Likes
32

Yeah, fungi a lot of times can be hard, and sometimes getting down to species level can involve knowing what tree species they grow with, what they taste like, or what the spores look like under a microscope LOL

I’d suggest searching up some good online information guides, or even buying some ID books, if you really want to get in to fungi - for online resources, Mushroomexpert.com is fantastic, as is the bolete filter (for boletes.)

Bookwise, the bible is Mushrooms Demystified by David Arora, and then generally it can be good to pick up field guides for your area.

1 Like
33

Also, generally, you only want to add an identification if you can independently confirm on your own. Sometimes I’ll personally only ID my own observations to genus with a species in mind but not wanting to influence other IDers and then add my species level confirmation later, but I try to only do this with stuff I have a pretty good idea on.

2 Likes
34

if I feel the CV (computer vision) is not good in a certain area, I’ll also push the ID into a more general taxon before posting, but a lot of times I feel like the ID represents the CV’s opinion. As long as someone doesn’t come along and blindly agree, I will leave the CV’s ID.

1 Like
35

Yeah sometimes the CV is super obvious and then I’ll just put it at species.

Its hard with fungi though, there can be so much individual variation within a species, and that’s not even counting the look alikes - and CV isn’t going to go know if that Trichaptum species is growing on a hardwood or a conifer.

3 Likes
36

@mpearlstein and @lothlin (and @bonesigh) Thank you for your advice! It does help me to see how my IDs affect others, how I don’t have to ID everything and I can still learn from observations, and how to best be helpful and keep learning. I probably created a little extra work for myself, but I went back and fixed most of my Fungi IDs so I apologize for the mass amount of notifications just now. When I learn more, I can always go back and get more specific. It helped me to review also on all the different things I’ve seen.

I am still figuring out when its appropriate to be able to use the CV suggestions to help ID, but I think getting some more experience with fungi and plants will help me figure that out later.

4 Likes
37

Well, most insect people focus on specific taxa, so it is generally more effective to ID insects at least to order when possible. The bug and beetle experts, as a rule, aren’t going to be looking for observations in Pterygota.

There are people who specifically work on sorting observations that have ended up in Pterygota for one reason or another – larvae tend to cause confusion, for example, as do less familiar orders like Trichoptera – however, they’re not necessarily the experts who can narrow the ID further. So if you (generic “you”) do have a basic grasp of insect orders, applying that knowledge will help get the observation seen by experts more quickly.

Being aware of what you don’t know is a good skill to have, though. I’ve found that the times where I reach too far beyond my area of minimum competence are generally the ones I end up regretting. IDing to the lowest level you are confident about is a good rule of thumb to minimize errors, though it of course won’t eliminate all mistakes. I’ll reiterate that it’s also fine to skip observations where you don’t feel like you can help/contribute anything useful.

If this is a response to my comments in the other thread, honest mistakes are not an issue; they are part of the learning process – as long as people read their notifications and withdraw if needed. I put an appropriate ID on the bee mimics and hand them over to the fly people, tagging them when needed, and they do the reverse for the bees that end up in their pile.

I do get somewhat annoyed, if you will, by IDs that seem to have been made without thought – e.g., where it is obvious that the user just accepted one of the CV suggestions without even looking to see whether the suggestion made sense or looked like the organism they observed. This annoyance does not directly correlate with the correctness of the ID or rather lack thereof. I am equally unenthusiastic about rapid agreements where it seems unlikely that the user spent any time considering what they were agreeing to.

There are a few things I find are helpful when evaluating CV suggestions. One is the “similar species” tab on the taxon pages, which will provide an idea of how often the organism is misidentified and what some of those species are (and whether you can see the differences). Another is to go up a level or two – to genus or tribe or family – and look at a couple of things: First, what percentage of the observations are “research grade” in your area; if this is quite low, it suggests that the taxon in question is likely difficult and you should be cautious when adding IDs. Second, on the explore page for your region, click on the “species” tab to see other species in the genus/family and get a sense of whether they look similar and what the distinguishing features might be.

If you’re serious about IDing, it is definitely also important to find and use external resources (keys, field guides) for your taxa of interest. But experience helps, too, and judicious use of the material on iNat can be a good starting point to orient yourself.

7 Likes
38

Something I’ll do for difficult taxa, sometimes, is follow the taxon trees back to the highest intersection that I’m confident with.

Like if its plant that’s not in flower, and I think its probably in genus Solidago, but it could also maybe be in Aster, I’d probably just put it in Asterales or even asteraceae… not that I’m generally in the habit of trying to identify things in Asteraceae when they’re not in flower, because that is a futile road to madness.

8 Likes
39

In my experience, the couple of people who refine Pterygota IDs can do it with more accuracy, often higher precision than order, and less effort than it would take me to do so. But in order to do it they need those observations placed in pterygota in the first place, so I think it is helpful to tell beginning IDers that it is ok to just place things in pterygota unless they are pretty sure about a finer ID.

This is kind of what I mean; in plants I would pretty much never get annoyed at someone for clicking a genus-level CV suggestion. I also wouldn’t get annoyed at observers for picking species-level CV suggestions. I would however generally suggest that new IDers don’t pick species-level CV suggestions, because sometimes the observer will then just blinding ‘agree’ as a thank you, taking it to RG without any real thoughtful human intervention.

I think I could probably write down a way to mathematically quantify the fact that above some threshold % accuracy for the CV, boldness to genus is information-theoretically better, at least in plants. I guess the difference with invertebrates is that you are often expecting that the observation will never get to genus, whereas for most observations genus will be possible in plants.

Asteraceae is its own special beast!

4 Likes
40

I wish. I have a nightmare stored in URLs I never get to. It is … a Plant!

2 Likes