We are getting closer to this in many if not most parts of the world now. People get upset when I suggest that in some areas of the world, there is virtually no habitat outside of protected areas, but that is increasingly the reality.
3 Likes
My latest approach to the issue:
Tag the IDENTIFIERS who give species level IDs to clearly cultivated plants without clicking the cultivated box. Provide a note reminding them to click the box and to inform the observer about this standard (required) practice. And also provide a note for the OBSERVER explaining the difference between cultivated and wild plants.
@(someone) donāt forget to click cultivated when identifying plants shown in clearly cultivated spaces. Also, please include a note to explain the importance of marking cultivated plants.
In the past some identifiers have told me that it is the responsibility of the observer to mark the cultivated box and they are not interested in doing so. Perhaps if they were to get a lot of reminders from a lot of different folks, we might be able to change their minds, at least a little. Because new users who need instruction need to get the instruction with their very first cultivated plant, not their 1,000th.
1 Like
An idea for automatic marking of commonly cultivated species:
In eBird, if you choose to report a rare or barely plausible species for your area, you are required to submit a comment along with your observation. Perhaps iNaturalist cold follow that formatāfor a list of species which are quite commonly cultivated/captive, a warning could pop up with a notice that says āSpecimens of this species are frequently encountered as cultivated or captive specimens. Please click the cultivated/captive specimen box, or explain in a note why you believe this specimen to be wild.ā And either the cultivated/captive box must be checked or a non-empty string must be added to the note field, or the observation wonāt be added.
7 Likes
This suggestion by Erika seems like a good step forward. The most common issue is people who know the plant is a garden or landscape plant, but just arenāt in the mindset that iNat asks of us, to be diligent about recording this data as a matter of scientific integrity. Itās not obvious to users initially, despite the name, that iNat is potentially a serious research tool for truly wild organisms. Does the general public even understand the term ānaturalā as iNat uses it? And so the note from the system would put the burden on the system instead of on front-line identifiers. As an identifier, I want to focus on the identification process, not on user education, which is a chore for me that I tend to avoid, especially if tired/sleepy/exhausted, no matter how much I know it is part of my responsibility as an identifier.
Iād much rather not be called out by Erika and others for not marking observations as cultivated as an identifier. This just creates tension in the identification process and yet another scolding behavior that we already have too much of.
5 Likes
Well, do it if you feel you must. Youāll just annoy me, though. I know I should mark cultivated plants as cultivated. Sometimes I donāt because I didnāt realize it was cultivated, or I considered it ambiguous. Your marking it cultivated would be welcomed, though the scolding would not. Other times, I donāt mark it cultivated because I want to wait for a better ID before I do. In this case, neither the marking it cultivated nor the scolding would be welcome. However, I can cope. I wonāt even hold it against you (unless you do it like a zillion times).
9 Likes
Someone else mentioned this already, but let me reiterate: You should not intentionally upload incorrect data (in this case intentionally leaving an observation marked as āwildā which you know is cultivated) in order to more quickly attract attention of identifiers.
5 Likes
A lot of the people who upload cultivated plants are new users, not intentionally breaking rules. Or deliberately trying to get the attention of identifiers, because they donāt even know that could be an outcome.
4 Likes
Until iNat separates Wild / Not Wild
from Needs ID / RG / a new status for both Not Wild and has a Community taxon
the issue remains difficult. People WANT an ID, and some will do what they need to, to get that ID.
For my own obs I upload as Not Wild.
IDing for others, I mostly leave it Wild - but if I @mention for help, I will have left a comment planted at Kirstenbosch.
If we achieve RG, then I will tip to āCasualā.
4 Likes
Exactly. This is the underlying problem behind this whole thread and this entire disagreement.
As an identifier identifying at a cultivated plant someone posted, my options are:
A. Mark as captive to prevent it from reaching RG, but also doom it to probably never be IDād again.
B. Not weigh in on Captive/Cultivated yet, making it possible to reach RG but also making it likely to get more ID attention.
Choice A is likely to keep the range maps cleaner, while Choice B is likely to result in getting a more precise/confident CID. Both are admirable goals, and I can see why someone would argue for either option.
Personally, if I ID something Iām sure is Cultivated, I mark it as Cultivated if my ID vote would send it to Research Grade. If the CID can still be improved though, I just add my ID and leave it at that.
As long as Captive/Wild determines whether something shows up as āNeeds IDā, this conflict of opinions will never end.
4 Likes
Note that the examples of animal interactions are the rare exception rather than the rule. And ones that I do make exceptions for in my perspective (though, these should still definitely be marked cultivated, especially after theyāve been IDed). As for the latter use, this really only applies to outdoor and preferably non-potted plants. It also assumes that these two groups can be split up effectively. There is a whole section of Euphorbia (sect. Goniostema) that is cultivated only indoors in temperate climates and rarely outside of potted plants in tropical climates. There are about 34,400 of these marked as cultivated. Essentially all potted plants. Poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima) is really bad too. There are over 13,000 cultivated observations of this species and the majority of the ones I see are potted plants. There are other succulent Euphobia species like this, though none nearly as bad as these two.
For what itās worth, I donāt care as much for species that commonly escape cultivation in the area observed. For instance, if you have an observation of E. myrsinites in northern Utah, it probably doesnāt matter all that much if itās marked cultivated or not for most uses of the data (at least, not from a biogeographic perspective; it could matter from a phenological or morphological study). If the plant actively escapes cultivation in the area where theyāre observed, the next generation of that plant will be wild, so itās not like itās not really harming our biogeographical understanding of the species. Even it the next generation gets some supplemental watering, I can think of it more as an introduced weed than a cultivated plant at that point. However, it matters a whole lot if you observe an indoor plant of a poinsettia in Canada.
2 Likes
Just to put this conversation into context, the sum of the cultivated observations of sect. Goniostema and E. pulcherrima amounts to 48,138. Except under very rare circumstances, I donāt ID or review cultivated plants. Out of these, Iāve reviewed ~12,000. For those who say that itās a simple press of the āxā button, try doing it over 10,000 times! Given what Iāve seen, Iād be surprised if all or even half of the remaining observations after the ones Iāve reviewed (the ~36,000) were marked as cultivated by their respective observers. I donāt know who all is picking up the rest of the slack (as an aside, a big thank you to those that do), but I canāt imagine that this isnāt a huge burden on our community. Keep in mind, this is just one species and a section of Euphorbia, a virtual drop in the bucket of the global problem. If you look at the number across the entire genus, itās 102.7 thousand (Iāve reviewed about 22.5 thousand of these). If you zoom out to plants as a whole, itās 10.8 millionā¦
One of these days, I should get a global estimate for how much identifiers have to pick up the slack. It should be pretty easy by doing a random sample and by counting (1) how many cultivated observations where correctly documented by their respective observers (2) how many were marked by an identifier, and (3) how many were automarked as cultivated by iNaturalist. After that, itās simply a matter of multiplying the proportion by the 10.8 million.
11 Likes
I did my duty this morning. I marked garden plants as captive/cultivated. I wrote notes explaining that āTsk, tsk, you should always mark garden or landscape plants as captive/cultivated.ā
The new user had posted a dozen beautiful garden flowers, with gushing comments āItās like a weddingā on each one. Iām a gardener. I recognize the work involved, and the pride of success, the celebration of the color and vibrancy of healthy blooms. It is truly the glory of ānatureā, but a human working with the natural materials to create beauty.
I was the party pooper today. I crushed the positivity. I am saddened.
7 Likes
I just made a Kentucky-sized hole in the Taxodium (bald-cypress) map. This tree is native only to the western part of the state, and planted everywhere else except for a few stray seedlings.
Iām on limited data so I canāt do Tennessee yet, but its in my sights.
6 Likes
Iām still reflecting on the social / emotional aspects of the question in this thread.
On the one hand, every identification thread is in fact a social experience. On the other hand, Iām acting as an agent of iNaturalist when I perform the task of identification, so I have a job to do, so an element of the social experience is my duty as an identifier.
The tension arises when my behavior as a human being, a positive person, a friendly person, a gardener with shared interests with a person, conflicts with my duty as an identifier.
I could have made a new friend today. I could have expressed appreciation and regard for this person sharing an intimate part of their life, their passion, their expression of beauty in this sometimes challenging and perhaps bleak world. This is how a friendly human with common interests would respond.
Instead, I did my job, my duty, I fulfilled my commitment as stated earlier in the thread. I did not make a friend. I probably shut that possibility off, in fact. Who would be open and vulnerable sharing their passion again if someone mechanically responds with a form letter, or a dismissive, curt āSorry, you did it wrong.ā
Now, maybe I could improve. Maybe I could do both. Maybe I could express my appreciation and shared love for garden plants, AND also gently and kindly educate them on the intent of iNaturalist.
I feel like the real burden is doing both, nurturing human connections while at the same time staying true to duty. If I didnāt care about feeling and friendly behavior, it would be nothing to me to mark them all with a curt response. But what do I then become? A heartless rule-follower and enforcer.
All this leads to the idea that the situation could be better somehow. I hope we find a solution. I donāt want an emotional struggle in my identification sessions. I want to appreciate and connect with other human beings without being obligated to be cold and rude. I donāt know the technical solution, but I feel itās appropriate to acknowledge the social and emotional experience that results from the current situation, and factor that into the way we think about possible changes.
11 Likes
These days thereās a lot of historic plantings that have blended in so much that youād never know.
Really the important part is that the obvious captive/cultivated cases are taken care of. Itās not going to break the universe if an oak that was planted in an oak forest 60 years ago ends up being passed off as āfully wildā.
And in some cases restoration or management that was successful over a long time span of decades is in itself useful data, some would say even approaching equivalent to real wild data, but thatās a rabbit hole not to be explored in this thread.
3 Likes
Maybe you could message this new user (outside of their observations) to express your appreciation of their garden as a fellow gardener, and gently explain that after you IDed their plants (assuming you did) you marked them as cultivated, because that is how iNat works. And explain that they can continue to post cultivated plants, because itās OK to have observations that wonāt be āresearch grade.ā
Maybe you could start (find?) a project for cultivated plants in your region, like this one for S. Africa:
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/cultivated-plants-in-south-africa-s-gardens-parks-and-urban-roadsides
Also, since you are knowledgeable about garden plants, maybe when you are IDing you could filter for Casual instead of Needs ID, and help out the observers who did know that they should check that box. Then you will feel kind instead of heartless.
8 Likes
Sometimes when I see something like a clematis flowering, one thatās clearly cultivated, Iāll agree with Clematis, mark it as cultivated, and make a comment like, āOne of the many beautiful Clematis garden hybrids.ā
More generally, I worry that if we the identifiers try too hard to identify cultivated plants to the species or even cultivar, observers may get the impression itās perfectly OK to flood iNat with photos of cultivated or captive organisms and start expecting us to identify them in detail. Iād prefer not to reward those observers with great IDs, so I am happy to ID something as a Conifer, say, mark it as cultivated, and leave it as that.
10 Likes
You could also introduce them to personal garden projects. Which is more welcoming than - no thanks, Not Wild enough for iNat.
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/home-projects-umbrella
100 members
Here is an iNat bit of my garden
Delighted to see a tiny bee - blowing nectar bubbles in the wind, to evaporate the water!
5 Likes
Part of the problem may be the number of these observations that have no ID. I regularly ID unknown observations, but I am putting very basic identifications on them. For example in this observation https://inaturalist.ca/observations/266366526 I know enough to ID it as a Spruce, but not enough about the species, location, range etc. to confidently mark it as not wild. I can either stop identifying any plant I canāt mark either wild or not wild, or continue as I am doing. Not sure which is most useful.
1 Like
Continue to do what works for you.
2 Likes