Much more than that. There is also the systematics that underlie the taxonomy. The distribution for many species was worked out mainly using preserved specimens (not photos). Our understanding of the life history, ecology, phenology, infraspecific variability, etc., etc. was worked out for virtually all species that have been studied using invasive techniques and collected specimens. We who document species with photos are able to do so in a useful manner only because there is already a comprehensive framework of information from past work that did not involve taking a pic with a cellphone. That doesn’t mean that photo records and less-invasive techniques are frivolous, I’m merely pointing out that a lot of the skepticism I’ve seen here about invasive methods seems to ignore the fact that what we know did not come to us by magic, it took a lot of work using a wide range of techniques.