Two years ago, I observed three trees and some horses, which I posted recently. The horses quickly got two IDs from others, though I marked them as captive, but no one else identified the trees. As far as I remember, none of my pines has been identified to species, and I’m waiting to find out what species of hickory I saw.
I can look up the genus and find top identifiers of that genus, but how do I get their attention? I’ve read of “tagging” people; what does that mean?
Do your pictures show enough detail for an ID? (PS not a criticism - but leaf or cone detail?)
When you look for a taxon specialist check
Then leave a comment
@phma and whatever wording suits you. I use ‘Help please?’ Or if you think it is species A, ask that. Ask one person. Wait (identifiers are busy volunteers). Then ask a second …
The linked observation has rather low-quality pictures, which likely contributes to the lack of identification.
In future, I would recommend close-up, clear photographs of features such as the needles or leaves, both sides of, layout of (alternating, opposite, etc), then also cones or flowers and/or fruit, and perhaps the bark on the trunk.
Such photographs will allow many more people to be able to provide a confident ID. As it stands, it may be that no one is able to distinguish further from those photographs.
2 reasons:
there are less botanists than zoologists
your pictures do not show enough for a species level ID. a very experienced field researcher from your part of the world might be able to tell it apart just by habitus and habitat pictures; but such IDers are even rarer.
For Pinus, one would expect at least a closeup of a twig and cone to come to a sensible ID.
as an example for Pinus, check out these two observations I have for the kinds of photos you may have to take for an ID
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/192316146
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/193114973
It’s not uncommon for observations to sit for years (I have a few that’ve been sitting for more than a decade now) before getting an ID, especially plants and arthropods.
Patience is the name of the game.
The observation has actually been sitting only for a week. That’s nothing.
Depending on where in North America you are, hickories (Carya) can be one of the most difficult trees to get to species. Like oaks (another potentially difficult genus) some species are known to hybridize, making an ID at genus often the best that can be achieved. As others have said, try to get as many shots of relevant features as possible (for hickories, a pic of the terminal leaf bud is often essential).
Plants, even though they don’t run away when you’re trying to photo them, can be a challenge. As others said, try to get as many detailed pics as possible of leaves, cones, bark, the whole plant, etc. I use a plant ID app on my phone in addition to inat’s CV to get a ballpark ID if I can’t get a species. Also compare to other records in the vicinity. And then wait a year or more (or forever) for a botanist to look at it.
The more you can put in to detailing your observation the better chance it’s IDable.
Some plants don’t need the best pictures to be identifiable or to stand out and have defining characteristics. Other ones need a lot of detailed pictures to tell them apart from other plants, whether it be at a species level or a family level.
In my area, a lot of pines need up close images to tell them apart. There’s only one species that doesn’t really need that, because its shape and sometimes color is characteristic.
There are 34.8 million plant observations waiting for ID (not including those still in the unknown phase) so that gives you an idea of the volume vs number of identifiers. It’s just not feasible to keep up with the plant observations.
The one near Bostic, yes. The one that brought down the power lines and kept me from getting out has been on iNat since the power came back on, and I took a closeup.
As to hickories, a sapling got a tentative ID of “mockernut” from CV, and I also photoed a few nuts and a tall one that fell over but is still alive.
Most tree guidebooks want to focus on the number of needles in a cluster, length of the needles, and so forth. So, in NC, for instance, shortleaf pine has needles mostly in bundles of 2 (occasionally 3), 3-5 inches long; loblolly pine has bundles of 3, 6-9 inches long. As others have said, the form of the cones can be important, too.
A photo of a needle cluster next to a ruler can be helpful. Make sure all the needles are visible (countable).
Did you mean, “Have NOT received any comment”?
Speaking of plant IDs taking a long to be found, I found your Radiata pine observation in Sydney because of this post lol
I didn’t really understand how lucky I am, in Aotearoa, until I started seeing how long it took for IDs when local botanists travel overseas.
Here, any plant I upload is usually ID’d in hours, if not minutes. Looking though at recent observations from a local botanist, that they took while in Aussie, they’ve had stuff up for a month, with excellently detailed pictures, that still have no ID.
For real. Some plants are so distinctive you can tell by a blurry image where all you can see is flashes of colour. Others though, need macro-photography of stipules and flowers that are an eighth the size of your pinky nail.
There are a handful of conifer species I keep an eye out for. Often there is not enough data to be able to ID with any confidence. Either the info is limited, e.g., there is only a distant photo of the whole tree or only a closeup that gives little info about the overall form or of the leaf arrangement/form, or the photo is blurry. I sometimes comment on what else is needed but realize that often the photo was taken in a location that is unlikely to be revisited. Sometimes, if I think they will be interested, I include a link:
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/chauncey/44322-to-id-a-conifer
or maybe: