(Warning: Long, but hopefully interesting!)
In June 2021, iNaturalist introduced a new annotation Evidence of Presence (EoP). One of the possible values was “Track” which was defined as “Impression in ground or snow made by an organism.”
Since that time, users applied the value to a number of other conditions outside the definition, sometimes being applied to observations showing all or part of an organism (perhaps incorrectly synonymized with “trace” (?)), and within class Insecta, often to leafmines and webs.
In March 2024 (just under a month ago), iNaturalist introduced new Evidence of Presence values including “Leafmine” and “Construction.” While these added values allowed for more specific metadata to be added to observations, it created a situation where some leafmines were annotated with Track, some with Leafmine, some with both, and of course, some with neither.
I undertook an effort to address annotations of EoP:Track within order Lepidoptera, and I am pleased to report that after two weeks of work, that project is complete. I wanted to offer a summary to provide insight into lessons learned that might inform future annotation values, and the community’s opinion on the use of annotation values outside of their definition. I’ll also offer my thoughts on how this impacts annotation of life stage.
When I began, there were 390 pages of Lepidoptera annotated with EoP:Track. As of right now, there are just 66 observations remaining annotated that way, showing what I consider to be some delightful examples of actual Lepidopteran tracks: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?reviewed=any&quality_grade=needs_id%2Cresearch%2Ccasual&taxon_id=47157&photos=true&term_id=22&term_value_id=26&place_id=any
Among those, there is one that does not technically meet the definition, but meets the spirit of it (the second photo shows a track in dust (or moisture?) on top of a trash can).
Of course, the goal here was not to undo all of the work that went into applying the Track annotations originally, and so as I disagreed with Track annotations, I also attempted to add one or more other annotations - often Leafmine, sometimes Construction (and in conjunction with that, Scat in webworm constructs), and in some cases simply Organism where one was visible. There are now 326 pages of Lepidoptera observations annotated EoP:Leafmine, 115 pages annotated EoP:Construction, and a whopping 44,639 pages annotated EoP:Organism! @ceiseman indicated that “When I’m all caught up on reviewing observations in the leafminer projects, I’ve taken to reviewing observations with the leafmine annotation” so hopefully this results in some folks getting improved identifications.
I did not apply an annotation where it was unclear to me if what was shown was a leafmine, or if it appeared to be surface feeding damage. I did the best I could, but I am no Charley Eiseman! Now would be a great time to review your Lepidoptera observations if you are concerned that I have unfairly robbed you of an annotation. I can confidently say that in a majority of cases I replaced Track with something else, but there will be some observations that need an EoP:Leafmine annotation applied.
I also did not attempt to annotate things like leaf folds and leaf rolls as EoP:Construction. I think those would be valid annotations, but I did not include doing that in the scope. There were also some rather unique cases that are probably worth community discussion, like the Horn-borer moths (e.g.Ceratophaga vastella) and their other keratin-loving relatives in Tineidae. I think these constitute constructions, but I think a consensus should probably built by the folks who are most interested in them. (Edit: I have since gone back and added EoP:Construction annotations where applicable for all of genus Ceratophaga.)
I’d like to see a decision on borers (perhaps “EoP: Bore” for feeding paths in wood and bark) to give people a better option than trying to stretch the Track annotation, especially given all the Emerald Ash Borer devastation we currently have in the US. (Edited now that I see the Beetle galleries are covered under the defitinition for EoP:Construction.) Feeding damage to plants in general still falls into the “use an observation field instead” category - but I think that there would be clear interest in additional annotation values evidenced from the number that have already been applied, and the long-running forum thread.
Where I could, I added or agreed with Life Stage: Larva and EoP: Organism annotations where one was visible within a Leaf Mine. Where an exit hole was visible, I disagreed with those values. I realize that this is not consistent with Tony Iwane’s Nov. 2019 answer, but Charley indicated that “being able to easily find observations of occupied mines will definitely be helpful in the future when I’m trying to summarize the phenologies of particular species.”
This effort was subsequently extended to all of Insecta. All told, nearly 900 pages have been reduced to just under 15 pages of Insecta observations with EoP:Track annotations: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?reviewed=any&quality_grade=needs_id%2Cresearch%2Ccasual&place_id=any&taxon_id=47158&photos=true&term_id=22&term_value_id=26
There are now 744 pages of Insecta observations annotated EoP:Leafmine, 510 pages annotated EoP:Construction, and a whopping 127,565 pages annotated EoP:Organism! Browsing the EoP:Leafmine observations, it’s easy to spot some large caterpillars, so obviously some education remains to be done on what a leafmine is.
I feel like having put in the effort, I have the right to a few opinions, and so here they are:
- We add annotations to improve the value of our observations with metadata. Anything we do that reduces the value of that metadata (such as annotating Life Stage: Larva to any leafmine and thus flattening phenology graphs) is contradictory to the point of annotating. However, I think it’s fair to acknowledge that this was a different discussion before the Leafmine annotation was introduced.
- If you want to be liberal with how you use annotations (and I understand their utility for projects and data handling in general), then also be liberal in applying fixes/corrections/improvements when they become available.
- I saw multiple observations where someone had added the EoP:Leafmine annotation, but not removed EoP:Track. If you’re afraid someone will get angry at you for data correction, just tell them to blame it on me!
The biggest pet peeve from doing this were the observations where users selected something for ALL the annotations, regardless of whether they were applicable or not. Maybe they think it will get the observation more attention? Not sure, but probably something educators should mention as a “NOT to do” during student bioblitzes.