Unrealistic observations of microscopic life, specifically diseases

I am sure this may occur with other microscopic life, disease pathogens etc, but I have observed it with snake fungal disease (SFD). What is happening is that snakes with a lesion that look like that of the disease, are identified as SFD, specific to the pathogen Ophidiomyces ophidiicola.
The problem:
a) The lesions could be anything
b) Even if fungal, there are many other organisms that could be present as opposed to Ophidiomyces ophidiicola

I proposed that ID’s of SFD should have support relative to the organism, such as a microscopic view, a PCR report (or even mention that it was confirmed with PCR, I’m honestly not a stickler). Naturally, my unpopular but evidence-based opinion gets drowned out by identifications for the pathogen which are based on “a hunch” and not what is actually presented in the observation.

I’m not going to lie, having such a bogus identification as “research grade” annoys the bejeezus out of me LOL.

See this observation for reference https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/(redacted by moderator)

7 Likes

Hi, and welcome. I appreciate your thoughts and how you’ve explained the issue at hand. But please be aware of tone. The Forum is a place to focus on solutions to problems, less so complaints.
I’ve also removed the link to the specific observation since calling out individuals is not recommended.

You can, and should, add a disagreeing ID to observations which clearly lack evidence of the organism observed. If you need more support, you should teach local or specialized observers how to differentiate the symptoms so that they may also evaluate the evidence and add the appropriate ID.

3 Likes

You can also mark them “as good as it can be > no” to remove them from RG if you’re sure there’s not enough evidence to have it. I don’t know what’s your common route, but with active users leaving comment helps in most cases, if user is inactive disagreeing id (also with explanation) won’t bother them.
There’re lots of taxa that need a lot of clearing work, so, if it’s for you – you can do it, but if it bothers you too much, maybe it doesn’t worth it to do it alone.
P.S. I checked, with 9 observations I don’t really know what’s the exact problem here, I thought it’s something like Calliphora vicina, just leave comments and id the level you’re comfortable with.

4 Likes

It is not so much a complaint, but a presentation of a problem within iNat. Observations that are communally accepted but without scientific validation. It removes the science from “citizen science”. It would be as if the earth was once again flat, if it were to be the consensus of popular opinion.

4 Likes

I agree.
There are large numbers of identifications of micro-fungi on iNat, usually leaf-spots, that are identified on the basis of symptoms and not the causal agent. Confirmation usually requires microscopy. There are exceptions when symptoms do provide a reliable diagnostic character, but to make that call requires significant expertise and supporting comments. Most often symptoms are not diagnostic and so iNat data can be misleading. In New Zealand I actively discourage this on every observation I see, not least because we have legislation requiring the reporting of ‘new organisms’. There can be significant consequences for our international trade if unsupported RG records for some reported pathogens start appearing in international repositories like GBIF. Elsewhere in the world I don’t get involved - but it is a significant problem. There are many groups of larger fungi with the same issue, even to the extent the CV gets trained on incorrect data and then the problem becomes self-propagating. My only suggestion is to make your identifications and make comments - which is what you are doing. It is exhausting and can cause friction, but is necessary in my view.

5 Likes

Identifying fungi at that level is a task beyond most iNat users. Most of us do not have a compound microscope, nor have the time/ability to sample a lesion and prepare the causative organism in an identifiable way. If there is specific look for this fungus, use that. If lesions are undefined, add ‘disease - not possible to identify’. Either ignore the ID or add something else.

4 Likes

So add an ID bumping it to a higher level.

4 Likes

I have a compound microscope and a stereo microscope. I also have the time, education, experience and skills to sample things. I also love microscopy. A lot of my observations on here are done with microscopes.

Then again I’m unemployed, homeless and poor. So I have all the time in the world.

1 Like

Well, for better or worse, that is how the iNat site is structured. Which is why other threads in the forums have emphasized that researchers must use their own discernment when using iNat data.

5 Likes

That may be true, but there are millions of iNat users who do not have a microscope, nor know how to sample in the field and prepare that sample for microscopy.

1 Like

True. I hope that more people can get into microscopy. It’s so awesome.

2 Likes

Now I need to know how are you fining those fish scales? Those are awesome! Are they just floating around or there’s a method to find them? I really want to spend more time with aquatic life this year.

1 Like

Thank you. They do look pretty cool. Almost like finger prints. I had a brief 3 month job contract as a fish ageing lab technician for a fish population study. I asked permission to collect samples for a personal project.

To collect scales all you have to do is remove them from a fish. Its harmless to the fish. I actually prefer it to otoliths because it’s harmless. Just wipe the slime off the spot. hold the tweezers straight up and pick off a few.

Then they are placed on an acetate slide and put through a roller mill press and they leave a perfect impression on the slide. Then viewed under a stereo microscope for ageing by counting the annuli. Like on a tree trunk.

I spend a lot of time on aquatics. It’s amazing, like a whole different world.

2 Likes

That sounds very cool too! Never heard about such technique! I need to start talking to fishers, for now I’m just giving envy looks on their catch. :fish:

1 Like

I’ve done some microscopy in my time, and it IS awesome.I would love to have a dissecting scope, which is a different beast than a compound scope. I’m not even sure that I would remember how to prepare a specimen, especially those that need staining.

1 Like

@ian253, when it comes to “citizen science”, the key is education. Friendly, enthusiastic outreach to inform folks what characteristics are needed for an identification. If you remove the citizen from “citizen science”, it’s just science! iNat is, first and foremost, an educational tool. A tool for community outreach and engagement. A tool by which citizens become better informed and engaged, and, if the stars are aligned, contribute to scientific knowledge.

3 Likes

You’re right… and you can’t force people to learn. Perhaps I was wrong and I am a stickler… I think things should be done well, if they are to be done. I constantly have old grey treefrog data up-taxed to grey treefrog complex because they can only be ID’d by call, and although I can ID with call, if I don’t have the soundbyte on iNat, a user cannot be certain that I know what I know… and I’m 100% okay with that. Grey treefrog complex it is :)

As per the responses about needing a microscope… yes. or lab analysis (aka pcr), yes. Does that mean that many microscopic pathogens are not documented on iNat… yes.

1 Like

Does that mean that many microscopic pathogens are not documented on iNat… yes.

I can’t disagree with that. I’ve tried to convince my spouse, who has done a lot of microbiology in her life, to try and grow things on agar, but apparently it is complex, possibly toxic, and smelly. Plus it needs a compound microscope. Complexities like this means that for the most part iNat observations are of larger life forms.
Would I like to see more microbes represented - yes (although I cannot identify them). It’s the nature of the beast, I suppose.

Hey, that’s MY motto! That’s one of the reasons I spend way too much time on iNat correcting IDs and helping folks learn how to ID certain things (other than it being fun, I get to learn stuff, and I enjoy interacting with the citizen science community and making new friends). But iNat isn’t a research platform…it just happens to be useful to researchers in some disciplines studying certain species. Microscopic pathogens aren’t one of them. I don’t think there’s enough money on the planet to pay staff to police every posted observation to ensure that they contain the necessary evidence to ID. There aren’t even enough volunteers–but we can make a dent. Those species that CAN be identified by photos are typically monitored pretty closely by iNat users (at least in certain countries) and it’s data on those species that can be useful to researchers. Researchers using iNat data have to understand that.

5 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.