Not sure if this is the correct topic, first post here and all. Just wanted to make this known. There are several observations of Ostriches not marked as casual in the United States that are simply a picture of a feather. This, in my opinion, should not be shown with other research grade observations. Ostrich feathers are used in feather dusters among other products sold in the US, and many of the observations are from areas with no Ostrich farms or any reports of escaped ostriches. It is far more likely these are just feathers that have fallen off some product or been thrown away. I marked these as casual but am not sure if I did it right.
You are correct to mark them as casual.
You are right to mark them as casual. Although I’ve seen sparrows and crows use chicken feathers and coloured duster feathers as lining for nests, miles from dirtbins or landfiills. Now there is conundrum, does it become wild again if another animal makes use of it in the wild? If a crow uses a chicken feather from a commercial hatchery as a nest lining, is the crow’s interaction casual or has the chicken been re-wilded as it were? Alice just got called for tea…
does it become wild again if another animal makes use of it in the wild? If a crow uses a chicken feather from a commercial hatchery as a nest lining, is the crow’s interaction casual or has the chicken been re-wilded as it were?
If a (wild) crow uses a chicken feather from a (non-wild) chicken, you have two observations: One wild observation for the crow (ideally with a detailed note explaining why a chicken feather would be an observation for a crow), and another observation, this time casual, for the chicken (again with an explanation, though it would be less critical for this observation)..
The above example is a bit silly/tongue-in-cheek, of course, but it parallels a very common real-world type of observation. If I have an oak tree in my yard, which I planted and cared for from the time it was a seedling, it’s obviously cultivated. But if there are galls growing in the tree, evident only due to some misshapen leaves, a wild observation would be created for the organism that made the galls, even though the picture is essentially a picture of a leaf from a cultivated oak tree.
You can swap the galls in my example for things like beaver chew marks/damage, mushrooms due to fungal infection, etc. It’s all evidence of a wild/non-cultivated organism.
I completely agree with your point of view, but it is my experience that the iNat guidelines and many iNat users will argue that these observations should be considered legit observations of wild organisms that can become Research Grade. It doesn’t matter what is ‘likely’ or ‘logical’, only what the observer experienced.
If you find an organism (and I suppose a part of an organism, like a feather) in a place where it was not intentionally put by humans, it must be considered wild.
I think that if the organism is living there without being intentionally put by humans, it’s clear, but for remains like this, not so much.
If I find a tree that grew out of a seed that fell off a truck, I do think it counts as wild.
But if I find a piece of furniture that also fell from a truck, even if it’s made of the wood of the same tree and not intentionally put there be humans, I don’t think it can be marked as wild. It is not specified in the guidelines, but I don’t think it would be reasonable.
In my opinion, this is more like the second case.
But are they ostrich feathers ? Or is it a joke / optimistic ID ?
There’s been an even more remarkable nesting material seen in Ukraine: fibre-optic cable! Apparently at least some of the local birds are using some of the thousands of spools of fibre-optic cable that have been used to control drones to make them impossible to jam in nests. At least with that nesting material there is no question over wild or captive!