What about in the observation page?
Use the URL qualifier introduced=false, e.g. native plants documented in Illinois on iNat:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?introduced=false&place_id=35&view=species&iconic_taxa=Plantae
1 Like
Absolutely.
All observations of species of introduced plants in Ontario (please note I’m not guaranteeing all species are properly entered yet)
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?introduced&place_id=6883&subview=grid&taxon_id=47126
All in Ontario that are not introduced (which oddly is done by saying introduced = false)
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6883&subview=grid&taxon_id=47126&introduced=false
Looks like we were writing at the same time, one minor note / correction to what Cassi wrote, Introduced = false will get both cases where it is marked as Native or Endemic, but also if it is not filled in at all. So it is possible that an introduced species that has not been indicated as such will be there. For example the first record as I write this is a Butternut, but the status is actually not populated there, it is not explictly marked as Native
1 Like
In the observation page you can only filter with *wild.
But thanks for the URL. With the native AND wild filters, still… I’ll be seeing selected cultivars, because nobody tag them cultivated.
I’m unclear what you are suggesting is still missing or not capable of being done.
Of course it is axiomatic that if the data is not entered, you can’t work with it, but that’s a separate question/issue to what functionality is available.
3 Likes
OK it can be done, but just to get back to the topic, I just found out these functions after months of using iNat. Also it requires URL edit and me flagging all the exotic (checklist) and cultivated (observation) plants. That’s not taxonomist friendly.
1 Like
Your efforts are definitely appreciated!
3 Likes
“sigh. i did read your post, you are assuming if i read it i will automatically agree with you?”
No, it just feels like you’re not actually addressing anything I said, so the options at this point are for me to say it again or point you towards where I said it already. The second option involves less effort. :-)
Re: turning observers into identifiers. I would love to start ID-ing more (and feeling a little guilty about my flood of observations with only very coarse IDs) but I don’t have a computer right now, just an iPhone, and as mentioned already, there’s not much identifying interface. Even the map tool is pretty temperamental- I am sure this is my internet connection, but my internet is as strong as it is going to get.
Also, I know next to nothing about taxonomy/wildlife biology and don’t know how to identify anything and no idea where to start. I know some taxa I would be interested in learning about, but don’t know where to start with them. @colinpurrington’s graphic is great. As is the oft-suggested Identify section on taxon pages. I also like the idea mentioned further above of teaching newbs how to differentiate two easy species and have them clean up those IDs. These are all things would get me (and probably others like me) more involved.
Anyway, @bouteloua did a great job of summing all this up already.
5 Likes
You might be able to find a field guide or similar type of book at your local library that can help you get started. It’s likely that a guide book will group species together by order/family/genus and from there you might get an idea of what characteristics tend to be associated with a particular type of organism. (e.g., fat waists for sawflies vs. narrow waists for wasps)
Another idea is to follow someone in your area who seems knowledgeable about the taxonomic group you’d like to learn more about. Check out their photos and compare the different species (or higher level categories). If there’s no ‘expert’ in your area you could also try going to the taxon page and seeing who has the most observations and/or identifications to browse their records.
This might be a little more hit-or-miss, but sometimes there are helpful guides on the internet. For example:
- Spider Identification by Eye Arrangement
- How to Identify Flies – Antennae Shape (Pick one of the three options to see more)
You could also check iNaturalist for a guide on the group you’re interested in to see if someone has made one with helpful tags to help with identification and learning how to distinguish between different species.
And sometimes, for me anyway, it’s just a matter of looking at page after page until something stands out enough to check it in more detail. That’s how I handle moths and moth larvae and I still find myself getting exasperated by the number of green larvae out there!
It also doesn’t hurt to go through Identify looking for things labeled ‘Unknown’ or at a very high level so you can get it narrowed down a little further – like from 'Aves (Birds) to Passeriformes (Perching Birds) or Ardeidae (Herons, Egrets, Bitterns). Do that enough and you’ll also be able to see what identifications people leave after you as the notifications roll in.
Don’t feel like you need to become an expert overnight. Learning step by gradual step is just as good and just remember that everyone has to start from the beginning with little to no knowledge at all!
11 Likes
Thank you, this is so helpful!
1 Like
I just updated the Identify Observations Getting Started materials which were quite a bit out of date. This was motivated by the City Nature Challenge Identify Stretch through May 5. But maybe they will play a small part in helping would be identifiers figure out how identifying observations work on iNaturalist.
9 Likes
When this forum was still on the Google platform, I participated in a discussion along those lines—adding text, magnified insets, boxes, and arrows to guide others in recognizing key features or even just to direct attention to those features in my own IDs. I was discouraged from doing so because it would interfere with the AI’s ability to learn the species. I do agree that it can be an extremely valuable tool for training humans. If it really does interfere with the AI, maybe we should propose a feature that allows us to tell the AI to ignore individual images.
3 Likes
or better yet to allow note taking or tagging on the photos after they are uploaded so the AI can just ignore it and so we can annotate on our own later! but that would be a lot more coding
1 Like
Possibly just imaging the key characters in good central focus and writing verbal explanations as part of the “tell us why” in the ID may avoid some of those problems, but I’m not sure the AI is really going to work out that well anyway in the end. I wouldn’t want too see the limitations of the AI limiting what we can do. For example, sometimes I image the whole individual and sometimes just the dissected genitalia. In any case I try to vary things so as to build up a more comprehensive image set for the species over time. I certainly don’t try to standardise the images for a species. This may confuse the AI, but it has other advantages.
I’m not sure how well the AI copes with polymophic species and/or life stages anyway? What about leaf mines and galls as proxies for images of the actual organism?
Is there an identifiers etiquette page? I feel like part of why people get frustrated with identification is because they think iNat is something it isn’t - namely somewhere where you have some obligation to create ‘evidence’ that meets some external criteria for nice or easy ID or whatever. I have heard from several people getting lectured that their pictures aren’t good enough (and looking at them, they are fine) and then lo and behold someon tried it on me today, someone non local who doesn’t realize the options here and that the photo is very much more than adequate for ID. It annoys observers, but it also doesn’t go well for identifiers. Because, the are gonna get called out on it right back, i don’t have much patience for people acting that way, especially when they are wrong anyway. I think it’s totally appropriate to say something like ‘i can’t identify this without flowers’ or if you are truly CERTAIN no one else can identify it, ‘it’s very unlikely to get a sedge ID with leaves only’ or whatever. But people push it way too far and if you rail on about how my photo is blurry or whatever, i’m not gonna be too excited to have your comment on my observation… This isn’t bugguide and there’s no obligation to take a pretty or ‘easy’ photo. I don’t know how but somehow we need to make that more clear to new identifiers because this annoying increasing trend isn’t helping anyone.
There isn’t a page just about identification etiquette on the website, but see these user-generated ideas for ID etiquette: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/identification-etiquette-on-inaturalist-wiki/1503 as well as several of the bullet points in the Community Guidelines.
1 Like
To be fair, one could just ignore inadequate photos without comment, but I think at least some identifiers are trying to educate and encourage uploaders to improve photo quality if they want IDs. This may annoy some uploaders if it isn’t done with the utmost sensitivity/diplomacy, but I personally think that calling an out of focus photo “blurry” is just stating a simple fact, and if an uploader is that sensitive, then perhaps online communities aren’t the best place for them to be. Others might see it differently, but I just think that it is easy to “make mountains out of mole hills”, but not very helpful.
6 Likes
I remember getting a comment that my Euphorbia couldn’t be identified from the photos I submitted because one really needed measurements. I wasn’t put off by this; I went back and got the measurements and posted again and learned something. So I hope identifiers will point out what would make a good ID photo. I get Charlie’s point that a photo which rules out all the alternatives that live in that area should be good enough for an ID, but it’s better if it shows traits that can get it through a key, so we don’t have to limit the pool of identifiers to local experts.
9 Likes