I’m involved with the local Native Plant Society and occasionally we go out to do plant rescues. This means we acquire the necessary permits and go dig up plants of interest from constructions sites to be bulldozed/paved over and transplant them to safer locations (gardens, parks, schoolyards etc). I often take pictures of the plants in their new location after they have been transplanted.
My question would be: What is the best way to add these to iNat? So far, I’ve been putting them up with the date and location the picture was taken, added that the plant was a rescue from place X in the description, and indicated it was planted/cultivated in its current location, which then makes the observation “casual.”
It has occurred to me that this may not be the best way to do it if people are interested in where the plant originally grew. The data when and where the plant occurred in the wild is usually known to me (date and location of rescue) and may be of value for those interested in historical occurrences (since those sites have been developed the plants are no longer there). I’ve read that things like herbarium records are acceptable if the original date and place of collection can be provided with them. Would this apply to living transplants from the wild as well? The main issue I see here is that the picture I have often is from a few days or sometimes months or even years after the rescue, so the date the picture was taken may not match with the date the plant was dug, which could be noted in the description.
There may be reason to have both locations indicated. E.g. the directors of a local park want to know where these plants are now located within their park. That would be the “casual” type of observation since they were planted there. But then a researcher looking into plant distribution may be more interested in the original location and not where it has been replanted. There may only be one photo of the plant in question. I know you can duplicate an observation to indicate several species in one photo. Would it be ok to similarly duplicate an observation to indicate both wild and replanted locations linked to the same picture?
Any thoughts/advice on this?