I understand clearly the iNat guideline on cultivated adult (or the plant equivalent thereof) plants. However, I am interested in the guideline around seed pods that came from cultivated plants and trees. These have ecological value, as they can aid the spread of seeds and form new wild populations of plants. Do these seed pods have value to iNat or should they be marked Captive/Cultivated? Are they wild?
Cheers, Silas
I think yes they are wild, absolutely. It’s not intentionally planted by anybody and is occurring naturally. I know many people won’t see it that way, though.
Edit: To clarify, I do agree with bouteloua’s comment and after reading it maybe mine is not as clear as I’d like. I think if it is a seedling from a planted tree, like say a tiny maple sprouting in the sidewalk of the suburbs, that counts as wild because it is sprouting on its own, even if the seedling is from a planted maple. The “helicopters” from them though, seeds, I wouldn’t consider wild if I know they are from a planted tree. I’d see that as evidence of that planted maple still.
Unless it has sprouted/begun growing on its own, I mark seeds/fruits of captive/cultivated plants as captive/cultivated as well.
May I ask your rationale for this? I ask not out of judgement but genuine curiosity.
Also, I noticed you edited my post but I don’t see anything different – what did you change, if you don’t mind sharing?
I added the tag “question”. You can see it in the edit history.
If I accidentally dropped an orange in Minnesota, and someone else came across it, no botanist would call that a wild plant.
(edited to use a plant that actually has seeds lol)
To put it simply, I believe the line of logic is that it is evidence of the planted organism still. Once that seed or seedling or pod grows on its own, then it’s a separate organism and is wild, even if it came from a captive tree. I also see that the seeds themselves could be evidence of a new population having potential to start, but I wouldn’t really consider it wild until the population does start.
Thank you for the replies, I understand now.
the minute it starts growing on its own it’s fair game, but until then it should remain captive/cultivated
Found out in nature, they do certainly have value as observations and can be informative about the origin of certain introduced species. However, as other have said until the seeds start germinating and the next generation starts growing on its own, I would consider them captive/cultivated.
Another way to think about this: one place to find a lot of these is at the grocery store, and oftentimes finding them out in nature is evidence of humans littering rather than the plants spreading on their own. But a seedling growing e.g. from a discarded apple core along a hiking trail is not “planted” on purpose, just taking advantage of having been thrown out in a place supportive of plant growth and taking advantage of that.
One example I know of: I’ve come across observations of kiwi vines growing out in the woods along popular hiking trails in the Southern Appalachians. It is a plant of concern for the rangers in those areas since it could turn invasive, so they want to know about it and target it for removal. How did they get there? I assume most likely someone threw out parts of fruit they brought to eat along the trail. But that’s just a hypothesis. Observations of discarded fruit pieces found in popular picnic spots or along the trail could support that hypothesis.
You know that one pyramid scheme? The one where they make sure to explain carefully the one little twist or variation that makes it “not a pyramid scheme”? As if that in any way changed the outcome? These proliferating threads asking about every possible wild vs. cultivated edge case are kinda like that.
The iNaturalist definitions are clear and well-written. I doubt if this thread, or any of the previous ones, will necessitate a rewrite or edit.
I don’t think the OP or any other user asked for a rewrite or change to the iNat guidelines around captive/cultivated on this thread. It seems like the OP asked a question about a specific situation and how to apply the guidelines that they were legitimately curious about
and received an answer that they found helpful
What I meant was that these kinds of threads, in general, seem to be based on the premise that there is something unclear or ambiguous about the definitions that leaves room for reinterpretation.
Well, to play devil’s advocate (and then I’ll probably mute this topic for myself lol), 1) the answer to this question isn’t in the definition of captive/cultivated or in the iNat FAQ. 2) The fruit of a cultivated plant was not itself planted intentionally by people. 3) It may not currently be where people intended it to be (e.g. floated down a river). 4) The progeny of cultivated animals are considered wild on iNaturalist if they’re not physically captive/cared for by people.