I am using the Observation Field “Similar Observation Set” for the same individual on different dates.
An early observation of the individual was later identified to a taxonomic level more specific than my knowledge.
In subsequent observations, I still only place the individual at the taxonomic level of which I am capable and confident, correct?
(I wish to cast no doubt on the identification of the identifier since the data set is linked, rather signify it is my own knowledge base that is not to the same degree.)
yes, this is the right approach.
if you wanted to, you could nicely ask the identifier from the previous observations to help you identify the new observation, too.
You should identify the organism to your level of confident identification. That doesn’t mean you can’t learn!
You can ID the second one yourself - with an @mention thanks to your identifier.
(Or whatever text works for you)
Yes, I would say you can identify the other observations of the same individual to the new, more specific ID – as long as you are reasonably confidant about knowing why it now has that specific ID – are there features you notice now that you didn’t pick up on before, that tell you it belongs to the more specific ID?
Learning is part of iNaturalist, so even if you aren’t confidant in your ability to identify it to the more specific ID now, that doesn’t mean you won’t be able to come back later and say for sure it’s correct :) an ID isn’t set in stone, you can always change it later when you learn more!
Thank you for the confirmation.
I cannot identify to a further level as I am unsure what features are being used. I have learned a lot in my time here but this is a new-to-me species in a very complicated family.
This was true of most everything in the garden though at one point! So maybe one day.
And that’s ok!
If/When someone adds a more specific ID, you can ask them what features to look for in the future.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.