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.
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.
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
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.
… 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 :-)
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.
