One, and only one

That’s the fun part, yeah!

Just going through moth observations with MPG open in another tab and sufficient patience could make a nice dent. I identified an iNat first a few days ago in New Mexico. Also, there was a forum post recently about searching for rare robber flies by @Myelaphus.

I just added a whole new Genus to iNat… I am thrilled about that, but I am even more excited that me researching for several hours to find the right genus (it looks so distinctive that I was not willing to accept family level only and was convinced it must be possible to narrow it down g) resulted in success

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/128525554

2 Likes

I spent the afternoon causing trouble after a wedge-shaped beetle popped up in my New Mexico needs ID stream. Tentatively, there are now 5 North American Ripiphorus species represented by 1 observation each:

  • Ripiphorus mutchleri
  • Ripiphorus nevadicus
  • Ripiphorus scaber
  • Ripiphorus popenoei
  • Ripiphorus hyalinus
3 Likes

I always wonder how people know it is a first observation. Is there an easy way to see such info?

1 Like

Generally no taxon photo is a good sign :slightly_smiling_face: Many arthropods are hard (impossible) to ID to species without specimens in hand or the perfect macro angle, or it’s not worth trying because the keys are old/outdated.

If you really want to be thorough, you could check “ident_taxon_id” in case a previous observation is stuck in limbo and places like gbif and bugguide to see what other records exist. There should be at least one type specimen somewhere, unless it’s a totally undescribed species. One of the cool things about iNaturalist is any observation could be the first modern/living/photographic record in history.

Invasive across Australia, but we found the first wild one returning where it is endangered in South Africa! Obs was a year ago, perhaps more this year??
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/95143107

1 Like

All spiders:
Theridion cheimatos
Cicurina japonica
Agyneta unimaculata
Clubiona saltitans
Mermessus fradeorum
Genus Maro
Nodocion floridanus
Ocrepeira georgia
Drassyllus creolus

1 Like

I found another iNat first! Polymerurus nodicaudus: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/127318438

Happened to be swimming around in some scummy pondwater I looked at under the microscope.

3 Likes

Another pollinator garden success! I thought I had a first state record (New Mexico) for Grotea anguina, so I posted it to bugguide and learned that I missed a subtle field mark for Grotea lokii. Turns out this species has no pictures on either website!

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/130844035

7 Likes

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/129392867
A rust fungus. I get a chuckle out of the number 1 in data. Looks like this fungus just exists on one ski hill now.
(last deleted post accidentally replied to a specific person)

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

How many first-for-iNat observations are there, right now, which nobody knows are first-for-iNat because they have not been identified to species? We constantly hear on these forums, “Only identify to the level you are comfortable with” – but that may not always be the best idea.

I made this observation of Sargassum back in April, but, not knowing the Indo-Pacific species – or even whether this genus was in the Indo-Pacific, I just left it at “Brown Algae.” Once two people agreed that it was Sargassum, I decided to step outside my confidence zone and do some investigating. It seemed reasonable to Google the genus and region. “Sargassum Polynesia.”

That led very quickly to this abstract. Now, if we believe that the researchers who got their paper published knew what they were doing, that would indicate that there is only one species of Sargassum in this particular archipelago.

How do we define “confidence” in identification? If you define it strictly as knowing the taxon personally, those “one, and only one” observations may go unnoticed. But if you define it as having confidence in your sources – and let’s face it, if you’ve ever cited sources in a paper you have written, you are relying on information that you don’t know firsthand – then that leverage may let you find that iNat first that you would have overlooked.

If my source is reliable and my ID correct, then that Sargassum observation is so far the only one of its species on iNat.

2 Likes

Using external resources, articles and keys are part of “id what you’re sure in”, id may be incorrect, but you have all means to be assured it’s a correct one. It’s different fron thinking it looks like X species and iding it without checking if there’s any similar species.

2 Likes

Yah, I dont get the issue? iD what you are comfortable with does not mean you have to personally know the species. But you should be reasonably sure you can exclude possible similar ones to the best of your knowledge… No matter if this stems from external, trustworthy resources or your own experience (which probably initially also goes back to other resources, as you surely did not just make up IDs)

I just recently added new to iNat species in my own and others observations I never had seen myself (before), but I was able to interpret the original descriptions or other research papers

3 Likes

Because people dont. We saw that in my other thread, "Is it useful to write out my identification steps? People respond to such information in every way except using it to verify an ID.

Now, the particular Sargassum observation I referenced has since gone to RG, but I find that it’s rather hit-and-miss. Much of my communication on this forum has been related to trying to encourage people to overcome their intense fear of making a wriong ID and have more confidence.

I may have potentially the first observation of the barklice Blastopsocus walshi on iNat:

6 Likes

I also have some other first and two are still “only ones” by now

this amazing antlike spider
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/817962-Myrmecium-monacanthum

and this Micrutalis
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1425971-Micrutalis-balteata

… there are for sure more Micrutalis balteatas on iNat, from what I have seen, but they are really hard to identify and I had to study the revision of this genus really intensily to get to species… it for sure helps, that I know the size of my own observation and also have different angles that show different details

But the cool thing is that this is not an only-one anymore…found an old observation belonging to this genus as well :-)

1 Like

I fell down an endangered species rabbit hole and stumbled upon iNat’s only Magnolia wolfii! According to wikipedia there are only three of these plants known to still exist in the wild.

3 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.