That explains the mysterious display on your liverwort example
Annotations (1)
No relevant annotations
Click click - nope - nothing. (Liverwort edited out again). For most of the male and female annotations you have hidden 53K useful info from planty people.
The male female dunno default is intended for animals then.
Why applicable to most plants? You have many variables for animals. 'No - you can’t annotate as larva ‘cos that doesn’t apply to most animals’ No elephant larva, no caterpillars then?
You could disable new ‘plant sex’ annotations, while we wait for a better way. But please leave the existing annotations visible and usable - at least via a Flag for Curation option for the appropriate plants. Perhaps we have a planty curator who would be interested?
Rather than a blanket prohibition on plant sex, could we not add another option for ‘bisexual’? Are there any organisms that couldn’t be placed in one of those four categories?
Do we need every annotation to be applicable to every organism? I think with the larva example that’s not the case, so the same logic could be used to selectively apply plant sex.
Also to note: sex is very much a ‘plant’ level character in some species, not a ‘flower’ character. And for those species, it’s a very useful annotation to have. If the issues that lead to removing the option are really concerning, could we allow curators to restore it on a case by case basis? It sounds like Lindera and Persimmon would benefit, as would Rubus chamaemorus.
Is this a user error, or the inevitable consequence of not having a ‘bisexual’ option?
That thread is five years old with 666 (!!) and counting replies. It’s asking a lot for anyone to sift through the thread to see what’s already been discussed for any particular annotation. I appreciate the summary table at the top, but it still leaves it to the reader to chase down the discussions related to each item. That’s really not viable anymore in my opinion.
I was also surprised that sex annotations was removed.
Once the egg is fertilized, fruit development begins, thus it is in the fruiting stage. Fruiting, as well as all phenophases can be further subdivided. It hasn’t been that long since we had little or no phenology. In the future, hopefully more will be added.
Are there actually any plants that are sexually dimorphic in their vegetative state – that is, where it is possible to determine the sex of a specimen without flowers (or evidence of past flowering, i.e., fruits)?
For the purposes of annotations, I don’t see how it matters whether a specific specimen is only capable of producing one type of flower (a male or female plant) or whether it is an individual that produces different types of flowers at different times – annotations describe what is present in the evidence provided. What that information means specifically is determined by the biology of the species in question.
bbk-htx:
Once the egg is fertilized, fruit development begins, thus it is in the fruiting stage. Fruiting, as well as all phenophases can be further subdivided. It hasn’t been that long since we had little or no phenology. In the future, hopefully more will be added.
Yes I realize that. The problem is that, while technically correct, adding a fruiting annotation for observations of plants with developing fruit in the absence of a specific “developing fruit” annotation, actively undermines the usefulness of fruiting data since knowing the seasonality of ripe fruits in a given area is generally of much greater utility than knowing the seasonality of developing fruits. So the argument can be made that annotating plants with developing fruits as “fruiting” does more harm than good for science (in the absense of more specific annotations). Simply adding more specific annotations would make all the data collected welcome and useful.
carrieseltzer:
Separating ripe and unripe fruits was considered, but since the ability to easily see this varies considerably from species to species, we opted to keep a single fruit option. For anyone interested in finer phenological definitions for particular species, we suggest using observation fields.
While that is valid to a degree, I would point out that on average, plants tend to be more readily discernable as to whether their fruits are developing or ripe than animals are readily discernable as to their sex in a given observation. So comparing observations of fruiting plants to observations of animals in general, a developing fruits vs. ripe fruits annotation would be able to be reliably utilized to a greater degree among fruiting plants than the sex annotation could be reliably utilized among animals.
andreass1:
Genuinely curious, how else would you annotate a plant with developing fruits? Not at all?
In the current situation, yes I would assert that it is actually more helpful to refrain from annotating plant observations with developing fruits as “fruiting” than it is to annontate the observation.
It may not be what someone doing in depth scientific research about something they are throughly familiar with would like to see, but for people learning about something they know little or nothing about, it is certainly useful.
I suppose that’s correct. I was responding to the claim further up the thread that sex applies to flowers, not plants. Since iNat observations are meant to be records of individual plants, and not records of individual flowers, I thought that distinction was being made to indicate that sex wasn’t a useful thing to include in a record. I maintain that it is a very useful thing to include, but arguably mainly or only for dioecious species.
Just spent some time going through all 40 pages of my plant observations and adding leaf annotations – I can’t wait to see the leaf color phenology graphs start to take shape once more observations have these annotations!
One thing I haven’t seen anyone else mention is that these changes seem to slightly change (at least, to my interpretation) what observations can be marked as “fruits or seeds”. Previously, I would be hesitant to annotate stray seeds that have been sitting around for, say, months, such as this observation of mine, as “fruiting or seeding”, since the plant itself probably was seeding ages ago and is no longer seeding at the time of the observation. However, the annotation being “fruits or seeds” instead implies to me that this should be annotated, since it is a fruit or a seed. Is this an intentional change? Was I misinterpreting the annotation before? Am I misinterpreting the annotation now?
The removal of the sex annotation for plants is a major blow. In the near-term, it’s going to make it difficult to impossible for folks like me who study plant population sex ratios or sex-specific phenology to use iNaturalist data for research. Same goes for conservation practitioners who are paying attention to how sex biases may impact effective population sizes and population persistence. These aren’t hypothetical use cases—I’ve been working on a project using iNat data, including investing many hours to add sex annotations for plant observations, that I might now have to abandon as a result of this decision.
I agree that more nuance to the sex classifications in plants (and more broadly across the tree of life) would better reflect the wonderfully diverse biology of sex expression, but imperfect was far better than absent.
What I am hearing is that an imperfect sex annotation for plants is better than no sex annotation, and that many of you who commented are actively using it. In light of that feedback, we have just restored the ability to see and add sex annotations to plants. I’ll update the post accordingly.
I would think that if the seed is the observation, then it should be marked as a seed.
If a plant is the observation and the seed is not on the plant, then the plant itself should be marked as no flowers or fruit.
Thanks! I have a follow-up question: What about leaves that look dead, either on the ground or still attached to the tree? When a leaf is dead has been discussed before but maybe this needs some guidance. Some examples of leaves observed before new growth resumes:
Oak leaves that have persisted on the ground through winter observed in March:
forgive me if I’ve missed it – just went through this topic and didn’t see anything written on it – but why is it that selecting “No flowers or fruits” (= the old “No evidence of flowering”) no longer hides other reproduction-related annotations? selecting “No evidence of flowering” used to wipe out the menu to select e.g. “Flowering” at the same time, which made a lot of sense. functionally, it’s still impossible to select both “No flowers[…]” and “Flowers”, but the menu is actually present, just that trying to select a second option gives the (very uninformative – would love to see this message changed --) “Failed to save record. Please try again later” pop-up, which I usually associate with a page reload problem (leaving an iNaturalist tab open too long will usually make that error pop up when returning to it after a couple of days and trying to interact with anything on the page). I don’t know if it’s just onerous to code the trigger that hides the menu from further attempted selections, but it’s a little weird. I guess it doesn’t rise to the level of a bug report, but…
With your first example, I would probably leave the annotation blank or use “no live leaves”. I’d be hesitant to use the latter early in the season if it isn’t readily apparent which tree the leaf came from and whether it no longer has any green/colored leaves attached. With a colored leaf and no tree, you can say “yes, this tree has colored leaves”. You don’t know if the tree had green leaves, but you aren’t refuting the possibility either. The “no live leaves” annotation refutes all other leaf annotations.
With your second example, “no live leaves” is definitely the correct choice. Colored leaves on American Beech would be yellow, not the crisp dry brown shown here.
Which means the more philosophical discussion that happened before about when a leaf is still ‘alive’ and at which point ‘death’ of a leaf occurs has gained a practical application because we’re now annotating that. I foresee future discussions and confusion on this where opinions might differ, just as they do with what constitutes fruiting etc.
