What I’m suggesting, though, is that life enclosed in a spacecraft (hitchhiking or otherwise), while in space, should be considered captive, and that our definition ought to expand to cover that scenario if it ever became relevant to iNaturalist. Thus my groping for additional criteria not in the current definition.
Point well taken that
I’m tempted to argue that, if observed while in transit, that gecko ought to be considered captive also, even though an observation before departure or after arrival would be considered wild. Unlike on a spacecraft, though, if the ship were suddenly to go away, there is a low but perhaps non-zero opportunity for the gecko to reconnect wtih survivable conditions (on flotsam to a nearby island, for example). Likewise with an aircraft, if it can survive a few freezing minutes and gets a soft enough landing. But survivability is zero when surrounded by the vacuum of space. Maybe one day we’ll learn of an encysting organism for which that’s not the case, and then the thought experiment can take a new direction!
If the gecko was floating on a piece of flotsam or a collection of some plant material rather than on a ship would that make any difference in terms of status as captive? One scenario is more “natural” than the other but neither involves human intent to confine the lizard.
Some fascinating discussion here, much of it relevant to our Never Home Alone project, which documents organisms observed in indoor spaces. The main goal of our project is to get a better sense for what species might have adapted/could adapt to exploit a new ecosystem that is now larger, in total square footage, than many natural ecosystems-- the indoors. As such, @raymie is right that the ISS observation definitely qualifies for our project. I understand iNaturalist’s hesitance in wanting this observation on their platform though – it does seem like you would need a bespoke way of tagging observations in orbit around the conventional extent of the biosphere.
Whether or not mold on the ISS fits iNaturalist’s definition of wild, I think it definitely fits my personal conception of wild. I just finished reading Project Hail Mary [spoiler follows!] where an astronaut harvests microbes from another planet and brings them into his spaceship. He then spends months trying to control outbreaks of the microbes on his ship. Life finds a way!
I agree but I would add that the ISS is now the extent of the biosphere. The non-human natural world has followed us as low into the earth and as high into space as we have gone. It will continue to follow us. Our intent or consent doesn’t matter.
I should point out here that unlike the cockroach on the ship that could crash into land, the ISS cannot crash into any moon or planet other than earth, as it is still in earth’s gravity well, and does not contain enough fuel to leave it. This means that any malfunction or loss of control has to result in a crash into earth
The boring answer is that obviously iNaturalist is for observations on earth, so nothing on ISS or on another planet could feasibly be posted.
As for whether a normally “countable” ergo wild organism on our planet would count in a case like the ISS, well. I’ve had similar debates with folks before on things like nursery and greenhouse weeds (that can only exist in directly manicured circumstances) and restoration sites. Stuff like some cockroaches or crickets that occur in zoos only in the indoor portions where temperature and climate is controlled invoke a similar thought as well.
True in this specific case of course. That is just what I meant when I said it is hard to draw the line of ‘escape plausibility’ that you would need.
Another hypothetical to consider is what if an astronaut posts a picture looking down at the earth ID’d to something that could go RG. For example, Sargassum blooms can be seen from space, and could go RG at genus if ‘cannot be improved’ is voted. I guess in that scenario the location would be the image coordinates, rather than the observer’s location.
Which raises another interesting question; what is the furthest distance between the observer and the target for an observation currently on inat?
In the hypothetical scenario where an astronaut does actually post an observation from the ISS to the site for any reason, get people interested in the site/‘connect people with nature’ and I think it would be foolish of us to turn it into a story about us being sticklers about the captive/casual status in any event.
I know there is no explicit rule on this, but I thought it was true that in the event of a large distance between observer and organism it was supposed to be the organism location for the sake of data accuracy, same as collected specimens being marked at location of collection not location of photography