I’ll create one, but how much do you bet it’ll be redirected to the “Let’s Talk Annotations” thread with 700+ posts 
1 Like
I think that thread is more about adding or changing specific annotation categories or values (open cones, mature fruit, 3rd instar, etc.).
I see your idea more as a “how streamlined the Identify workflow is” and it just happens to be in practice related specifically to how annotations can be interacted with in that workflow. But it’s more about identifying than annotating. There are other keyboard shortcuts in Identify besides the ones for annotations, after all.
2 Likes
I see. You can be certain that I have lots of ideas for streamlining identification and annotation workflow! For example, shortcuts for withdrawing and (more importantly) deleting the last ID made on a observation and the option to change the relative size of the left and right panels of the Identify page
I think it would be better to say “senescent leaves” rather than “colored leaves”.
1 Like
A succulent plant turning red/orange/etc. during drought is not senescence though (I think? I’m keen on morphology but not so on physiology.).
If the drought (or other stressful conditions) continue(s), then yes, the leaves can senesce and die off. However, if better conditions arrive, those red/orange leaves can green right back up.
The above is included, along with senescence, in the definition of “Colored Leaves” put forth in iNaturalist’s annotation documentation, so “Senescent Leaves” would imply a narrower definition than actually applies in this case.
1 Like
Thank you @tiwane ! Missed the notes previously and look forward to more annotation options down the road!
1 Like
I believe so, the term “senescent leaves” is more specific, as you demonstrated. I imagine the initial intention was to record changes in leaf phenology, especially for deciduous or semi-deciduous species. This would allow for comparisons between deciduous and evergreen species. Therefore, assessing leaf senescence would be more useful in this context.
On the other hand, I understand that in many cases, it might be interesting to record the presence of leaves with reduced development, as seen in succulents. There are even ferns that exhibit this behavior without changing color, such as Selaginella convoluta. I would like to indicate this growth pause behavior without leaf loss. I wonder if adding another term, perhaps something like “colorful dormant leaves” or “colorful acclimated leaves,” could be useful in these cases. However, I’m not sure if it would be the best term to use. I’m open to suggestions.
Lastly, I wish there were a term to indicate cases where this classification does not apply, such as in plants that do not produce photosynthetic leaves. This way, there would be no pending notation. It would be possible to differentiate applicable cases from non-applicable ones, similar to how the absence of flowers and fruits is recorded in plants. When evaluating the phenology of a family, it would be interesting to see the existence of these groups. For example, in Lauraceae, most species produce leaves, but the genus Cassytha does not. Conversely, in Cactaceae, most do not produce leaves, but Pereskia does.
I also recall a recent case that left me uncertain about classification. A plant without photosynthetic leaves but with inflorescences with colored bracts. Should I mark green leaves in this case? It doesn’t seem fair, as these leaves represent a flowering event, not a vegetative one. I think this is something to discuss, and I would appreciate other opinions on this matter.
I believe that with more input, we can find a middle ground that is simple yet useful for adaptation and application in all cases. I see these changes positively and think we are on the right path.
Ps.: It would also be interesting if, in the case of plants, it were possible to record sex at least as: male, female, hermaphrodite (which would include other forms) and indeterminate.
@tiwane
when will the translations of the annotations be implemented on the website?
They are sitting in ‘approved’ status since two weeks
That’s right, for this reason I would like there to be an observation so that the fruits and seeds were only marked while they were still on the plant. With the current definition, I can already see markings appearing with dried fruits found beneath plants and seeds stored in museums, compromising the clarity of phenology. I would also like there to be an option for leaves in cases where the information cannot be determined, such as in plants that do not produce leaves or when they are not photographed.
3 Likes
That used to be stated in the tooltip for “fruiting.” The same problem occurred back then.
1 Like
I came here to ask about this same thing. For instance i recently observed a bunch of Salix lanata on a trip to Iceland; i would consider the leaves more blue-white than green. I am guessing we are still meant to mark them as green leaves if they are not senescing for a dormancy, right? I guess most people would infer that but i’m not always very good at inferring…
1 Like
Yeah, if the leaves are “normally” blue-green I would mark them as “Green Leaves”. (At least, that’s what I’ve been doing.)
5 Likes
So I have a question about leaf annotations:
There are some plants that naturally don’t produce chlorophyll, such as Monotropa uniflora. They have leaves but they are reduced to small, white “scales”.
Cacti are another difficult example, since the leaves are modified into spines and the photosynthesis generally happens in the stems.
In these case, how would we annotate the leaves?
1 Like
Since the intention was autumn colour, or drought stress - I would skip leaf annotation. Only recording when the colour is different to the expected.
3 Likes
if there are only empty bean pods left with no seeds in them, do I annotate as fruit and seeds or no flowers or fruits?
I annotate as fruit, because I use that annotation to sort pictures to show - what does the fruit of this plant look like.
Edits: Final edit) Please ignore my below question since I overlooked that the annotations for Leaves apply to all Angiosperms and not just dicots, which is clearly stated in the original post but that I overlooked. Before today, I had been adding the Green Leaves and Colored Leaves annotations to Allium tricoccum and other monocots but oddly didn’t include the Breaking Leaf Buds annotation with them. As the annotation is 1 of the options, though, it should have been obvious that it is included for monocots, as well.
Although I could just delete this post in this thread since no one has reacted or replied to it, as part of the intention with revising the annotations was to make them simpler to understand for the average iNater, and as I might not be alone in this misunderstanding, I am leaving it.
Original edit) Unless I read convincing replies that state otherwise, I think I have answered my own question, below, and will annotate bulb buds like the Allium tricoccum ones pictured as Breaking Leaf Buds. @carrieseltzer , is my understanding of this Leaves annotation correct?
In light of your (@regnierda ) comments, would you apply the Breaking Leaf Buds Leaves annotation when a leaf is just beginning to split open a recently-closed leaf sheath on a bulb, such as in these 2 cases from the obs here and here?
3 Likes
I agree that the text of updated annotations is still confusing to apply to a lot of plants, especially monocots. It seems that it was very much written for deciduous dicot trees and shrubs in temperate regions and not for the broader range of plants recorded across iNat. The fact that annotations are used both to generate phenology data and to filter photos also complicates using them in many cases.
Rather than get official guidance for each edge case, I feel it’s fine for identifiers to make their best attempt to apply these to the taxa they work with. If you feel that there’s sufficient benefit in using “Breaking leaf buds” to tag observations with photos of monocot shoots emerging from a bulb or corm, I say “Go ahead!”
6 Likes
This is an older comment so it might have been addressed already … but it doesn’t feel accurate to annotate leaves that are on the ground unless they are fresh/green. Annotating dropped, now dead, leaves would skew the data. Say leaves were broken off of a tree and are on the ground yellowing, marking them “Colored” implies that they are on the tree and yellowing, thus yellowing due to a seasonal change or from drought.
4 Likes
I still don’t see how combining drought and autumn / fall season - colour changes in one annotation can be useful.
Autumn is an annual season for phenology.
But drought is only in the years when it happens - and we don’t say ‘this time it is drought, not autumn!’
1 Like