I notice the species page no long displays species with fewer than 20 obs. So I guess thatâs how staff chose to handle this issue.
Where are you referring to?
The place I looked was https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=2738&view=species&iconic_taxa=Plantae
The Explore page only shows the top 500 results (itâs been that way for several years).
Ah okay.
Iâve encountered a lot more escapee observations recently, making me think of this. Is there any news of how this issue is going to be handled?
1 Like
Same, we cultivated plant people got really excited there for a second
2 Likes
Here is an example of a brown recluse that arrived in a package at a FedEx facility outside the spiderâs native range.
Not seeing how to mark this important fact in iNaturalist, I originally indicated that the location was incorrect, but someone eventually marked it with a ârange anomalyâ of âstowawayâ, so I retracted my wrong-location vote. However, Iâm not seeing this reflected on the observation map or shown when I hover the mouse over the observation on the map.
Some people had pretty strong feelings that it was wrong to mark the location as incorrect, but that did not include the person who made the post, Chad Heins, who is a seasoned spider taxonomist. So at least in this case, we were not dealing with the possible issue of prioritizing the observerâs iNaturalist experience over having accurate data.
2 Likes
By that definition, two of my spoiled now indoors-only cats would be considered âwildâ since they were born as feral kittens without human contact for the first weeks of their life. They showed up in my yard looking for food after being orphaned and I had to trap them. I would only consider these wild until the moment they were captured and taken into human care.
2 Likes
Has a conclusion been reached on this issue yet?
Iâm not able to read all the discussion here but my main concern regarding this is that not all categories of wildlife should be treated the same way. For instance, âwaifâ or escapee plants have short life cycles and are prone to showing evidence of establishing far more easily than say, a reptile or mammal thatâs released.
Generally I notice people give insects the benefit of the doubt, that is, recently discovered insect species that are considered âwildâ even if they have not established a colony yet. While turtles such as those âspreadingâ in the Bay Area due to persistent releases are not given this benefit and generally marked âcaptiveâ. This somewhat makes sense to me as insects clearly have a much faster life cycle and they tend to demonstrate more adaptive capabilities, while released pets are almost certainly a one-off or unable to stabilize.
In my eyes, having the establishment check would be a bit confusing as it becomes hard to distinguish between âwild, introducedâ and ânon-wild, establishedâ. Or would the latter pairing never be possible? But if it is, when does a species go from established to introduced and no longer considered ambiguous? Who decides this? What happens to all the past marked observations when a species earns proper âwild, introducedâ status up from ânon-wild, establishedâ?
I think in my head it would make the most sense if the options were: âwild, captive, escapedâ. There should not really be a distinction between âestablishedâ and âwildâ (as in, wild+introduced).
1 Like
I disagree. Keep it simple. Wild (out on its own, however it got there) and captive/cultivated. (Count those escaped/released turtles in the Bay Area as wild!) The more complex the system, the more it will misapplied.
Also, by accepting all these waifs and escapees as wild, we track early invasions. (See my comment above for details.)
6 Likes
The difficulty for me is that there should be a distinction between an absolute one-off, and a possibly capable or emerging population. For instance one individual waif or a diamond terrapin, versus multiple.
But I also see the value otherwise which is why I think a distinction between captive and âreleased but not establishedâ is a useful selection.
But if you see one diamond terrapin, how do you know itâs the only one present? And if the population is established, how many are you actually likely to see? More with turtles than with, say, boa constrictors, but the same issue applies. Just call them all wild and let the situation get sorted out over time.
7 Likes
Because then you have a very substantial amount of data to sift through, most of which is not beneficial outside of selective circumstances (e.g. tracking pet releases). Single releases are not overall useful data until thereâs a trend. If something does end up becoming established, itâs easy to go back and âfixâ those older records. Otherwise you have a species list where more than half of the entries are pets, releases, and it makes a hash of range maps and requires more time to manage the data taken out of it.
I formerly didnât believe it but over time Iâve understood why there needs to be a distinction. Or at least, some easy categorization that keeps âthoseâ sightings from âthemâ.
1 Like
I disagree, mostly because you donât know if thereâs a trend until you see all the data, and âcaptiveâ data doesnât get seen. Weâll just have to disagree, seems like.
7 Likes
I agree with Sedgequeen.
I already see so much stuff marked as captive that should NOT be, and it makes it very hard to track established populations of invasive organisms. For instance, in Sonoma County CA there is a large population of escaped peacocks, which identifiers always assume must be pets and mark as captive. Theyâre no more captive than the wild turkeys are. Same thing with chickens - thereâs a number of chicken flocks in the state that have been expanding in range, and would be important to monitor.
My point being, thereâs no way to tell if the random animal someone saw is an escaped pet, a one-off, or the start of a new population emerging. And if theyâre all turned casual when they appear, nobody is going to notice that there IS a population emerging, because theyâll never appear in the maps.
Perhaps a compromise where non-native organisms with less than X number of non-captive observations in an area do not appear in CV suggestions, do not expand range maps, and can be filtered out easily, but are still research grade and visible. Once it hits a certain number of observations in an area it would automatically change status to âestablishedâ.
In the brown recluse example mentioned by someone above, I think itâs important to know that that spider arrived where it did and how it did, because there could be more arriving the same way. The next one could be pregnant, scurry off into a corner, and boom, youâve got a population.
11 Likes
Iâm just basing it on my experience and interpretation. Iâm open to changing my mind if I can see the other side overrides my own. Itâs not a firm, unchanging opinion.
The biggest obstacle for me is comprehending dismantling the division between âwidely establishedâ and âone-offâ. Though I feel that in your example itâs still fine to assume one-offs are not established until proven otherwise. That doesnât mean that data is now suddenly gone and no longer useable for watching such species, unless you never search by âcaptive/cultivatedâ. That search inclusion I suppose is desirable if youâre wanting to watch new invaders like that anyway. Just so no âcasualâ ones slip under the radar.