Snubbing iNat data

[scottdwright]

To answer the original post (question) re: snubbing iNat data - No, have not encountered that - yet.

In regards to the “snubbing” and issues of (perhaps data quality) of iNat data, I was interested in just checking in with Google Scholar with keywords related to this topic (“naturalist data quality”) and a narrowing of the search with year “Since 2025” and there were about 2,900 results which would need more sifting (of course). But found several “gold nuggets” of information about an issue that I recall as being a critical dimension in Research Methodology courses (and to some degree Statistics) - and then involved in teaching these topics at both undergrad and grad level that… instead of one approach as superior vs. another (kind of) research method, the essential element was to know how each one approach has strengths and weaknesses. And yet, the usual suspects of (as example) qualitative vs. quantitative seemed to be like tribal groups within academics…when at some point the notion of a multi-method approach seemed to help some degree of illumination: Why not embrace a wider scope of various methods Instead one relying on “one tool in the toolbox”? Perhaps the scientific approach could benefit from various data sources while (acknowledging) knowing the strengths and limitations of each one.

And so several articles were noted in the search this morning (11/18/25): Mesaglio, T., Shepherd, K. A., Wege, J. A., Barrett, R. L., Sauquet, H., & Cornwell, W. K. (2025). Expert identification blitz: A rapid high value approach for assessing and improving iNaturalist identification accuracy and data precision and confidence. Plants, People, Planet, 7(5), 1469–1484. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.70005

Carroll, C., Furrow, R. E., & Gerhart, L. M. (2025). https://theoryandpractice.citizenscienceassociation.org/articles/10.5334/cstp.825

Habel, J. C., Huemer, P., Schmitt, T., Rüdisser, J., & Ulrich, W. (2025). Strengths and shortcomings of citizen science data: lessons from Austrian butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation, 29(4), 1-13. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10841-025-00696-2

Wilcox, R.C., Baniaga, A.E., Hill, A.P., Young, A., Johnson, R.F. and Jacobs, S.J. (2025), Documenting biodiversity with digital data: comparing and contrasting the efficacy of specimen-based and observation-based approaches. New Phytol. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.70406

I thought that this quote from Wilcox et al (Aug. 2025) in the conclusion section helped to advance a bit of wisdom when addressing the issue of data quality, multi-methods, data sources, and how iNaturalist data can complement the effort to increase knowledge - and support the learning process for participants of all ages and whether they be in a R1 university setting, a teacher at secondary school, a student, or septuagenarian.

“All paths forward to meet our conservation challenges rely heavily on the continued documentation of biodiversity. Engaging more people in collecting these data can be an important step in instilling a sense of belonging and inclusion into the broader and long-term conservation effort. Obtaining broad and active participation in biodiversity observations from professionals, amateurs, and community scientists alike is essential to meeting our conservation goals.” (Wilcox et al, Aug. 2025).

[sedgequeen]

How do you interest scientists in Blepharis petalidioides? iNaturalist is great at generating data but it isn’t the best way to find contacts. If you reach out to someone, sending the URL of your project would be a great help for interesting them. How to find interested scientists? I list some possibilities below. Important question: Is this species native to your area? Or is it native elsewhere and introduced in Botswana? If it’s native and rare, people involved in rare plants would be interested (and technically we couldn’t call it invasive, because it’s native there, though it might be ruderal – weedy.) If it is introduced from elsewhere, agriculture people would be interested. It looks like both weed control and plant conservation are departments in the Ministry of Agriculture. You could start there. It will take a while to get through the bureaucracy to someone interested; persevere.

Blepharis petalidioides is included in a rare plant list: https://www.botswanaflora.com/speciesdata/species.php?species_id=215740 The people who generated that list would probably be interested in your plant and could help you contact relevant scientists.

For more academic scientists who might be interested, you might contact one of the main herbaria in Botswana, to ask who to contact. You can get contact information about these herbaria through the website Index Herbariorum. Those 3 or 4 letter codes are the herbarium acronyms you can use there to look up contact information.
GAB , National Museum, Monuments, and Art Gallery, Botswana. Gaborone.
MAH , Department of Agricultural Research, Botswana. Gaborone.
BACH , Botswana University of Agriculture & Natural Resources, Botswana. South East. Gaborone.
PSUB , University of Botswana, Botswana. Ngamiland. Maun.
UCBG , University of Botswana, Botswana. Gaborone.

Kaj Vollesen, who originally described this species, was associated with the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. You could contact Saba Rokni, Curator-Botanist, Africa & Madagascar team, s.rokni@kew , to find out if Vollesen is still alive and still available to help.

You might get some advice from the authors of this open access paper first published in 2021:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tax.12600
Revised classification of Acanthaceae and worldwide dichotomous keys
Erin A. Manzitto-Tripp, Iain Darbyshire, Thomas F. Daniel, Carrie A. Kiel, Lucinda A. McDade
https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12600
Erin Manzitto-Tripp’s e-mail is (or was) erin-manzittotrip@colorado.edu If this e-mail no longer works, ask the botany department or the herbarium there for help.

Sounds like this plant is rare enough (and the few specimens are bad enough) that herbaria would welcome good quality specimens. This plant looks hard to press and dry because of those stout thorns. Cut a flowering or fruiting branch off a shrub. Press it really hard between a couple pieces of wood to break or bend those spines to make the plant as flat as possible. Then put it inside a folded piece of newspaper (size 11 x 17 inches or smaller). It would be best to use a layer of foam (like that used to stuff chairs or car seats) to distribute the pressure to all parts. Put the specimen between pieces of corrugated cardboard so air can circulate near the plant. Dry over a gentle heat source or if the climate is dry and warm enough, with some ventilation. Ideally, flowers will dry with the color still visible. Write a label to go in the specimen telling where and on what date you collected it, your name, and your collection number (if you use them). It’s best to indicate whose permission you had to collect the plant, too, though that can be a separate piece of paper. If possible, collect several specimens (without damaging the population.) Correspond with one or more of your local herbaria. Donate. You may find that a local herbarium regularly exchanges specimens with other herbaria and could send your duplicate specimens off to other places. This has the opportunity to put your specimens where interested people will see them.

[pisum]

@andyvbrower

For example, H. erato venus has 8 dots, and H. erato microclea has 4.

for what it’s worth, if you zoom in, you get a lot more dots on the map.

[josephthebirder]

I can’t say I have run into this problem yet. In fact, quite the opposite. It is because of iNaturalist that I have been able to work for the state gathering data on spider biodiversity. (All this despite never, up until that point, having gone to college. But that’s a story for another thread.) Anyway, my point is to introduce the idea that because of websites like iNaturalist, SCAN, GBIF, etc, we’ve been able to gather data to create the first official checklist of spiders for New Jersey. It is a work in progress still, but having access to all of that data without needing to conduct state wide surveys year round is incredibly helpful. Especially when one understands how the websites work, what makes a research grade observation (I agree with previous sentiments that 2 IDs making research grade feels a bit lenient), and how to tell if something is a pet, introduced, etc. It is a valuable tool in the belt of a researcher, scientist, college student, citizen scientist, etc. And it is just that. A tool. It won’t solve all of the problems, but it’ll tackle quite a few. Which is why it is great that we have so many tools to pick from, including our own minds.

I will say, I do worry about scoffers when I mention iNaturalist and how I use and how it is used. “Hey look, an online website that anyone can use and you only need 2 people to agree on something (though, if they are two experts…hmm…two experts agreeing holds a lot of weight. It might attract others. But then, what is an expert? I derail myself here.) and then it becomes data all scientists can access!

TLDR; nope, I have not encountered this yet. Just the opposite. People usually think it is cool or are already using it for scientific advancement.

[onekoolkid0]

I have not experienced it and glad. That is not the point of iNaturalist. It is be definition citizen science and everyone can learn. That’s the beauty of it.

[gpohl]

…or you could use both! Sure, accept the 300k dataset, but also mine the 50k iNat data. At the very least, a quick scan for spp that are not in the 300k data, and some vetting of those, might turn up some great records. That takes time, but you can decide how far down the “diminishing returns” path you want to go, instead of tossing it all out.

A group of fellow moth experts are in the process of doing this in Alberta; we’ve extracted a list of about 100 potential new provincial iNat records, and are currently vetting them. Admittedly many are incorrect, but a few are gems.