I’ve taken quite a few photos of amphibian type specimens and think they’d be a valuable and interesting resource for herpetologists on iNat. I have two questions:
‘iNat is primarily about observing wild organisms, not pets, animals in zoos, garden plants, specimens in drawers, etc.,’
https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000169932-what-does-captive-cultivated-mean-
I agree with dendroleon that this sort of observation is not usually appropriate, but the type specimen at the type locality (that is, the original specimen that the scientific name and description are from) would be really fun to have. You could just place it centrally in “Egypt” but I’m not sure how you make a nonspecific date. Quite often, however, someone has come along later and published an analysis of what the precise type locality might have been. You might enjoy researching that for some of them to make them more specific. Anyway I wouldn’t find a few of those objectionable.
Yes, iNat isn’t a good fit for pictures of museum specimens (unless the observer is the original collector). They can be tolerated in small quantities but would need to be downvoted for “Wild” in the DQA (as the organisms didn’t intend to be at the museum) and uploaded at the museum at the present day (when the observer interacted with them). Observers shouldn’t add photos for museum specimens with the original place/time of location unless they made the collection themselves.
There are a fair amount of previous threads on the forum that address this that have more details about this issue.
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/museum-specimens-antique-photos-and-inaturalist/31638
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/some-questions-regarding-museum-specimens/51502