This is a bit more niche and hypothetical, but I’m curious about how this type of scenario would work, so let’s say I found evidence of an ecologically “modern” organism (extinct or extant) ie: skeletal fragments, teeth, woodrat middens, etc. but I knew it was from the upper-Pleistocene or early-Holocene. Would it be advised that it be marked as non-recent like other paleontological remains?
1 Like
iNat’s definition is “~100 years”, so:
If you know it was definitely from within the past 100 years, it’s “recent”.
Definitely from before 100 years ago, it’s “not recent”
Not sure? Most people default to “recent”.
https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/help#quality
5 Likes
Awesome, thank you!
As a corollary, iNat won’t accept observations submitted with dates >130 years ago.
3 Likes
The question was asked on another thread: why 130 years? I didn’t see an answer.
I don’t know of a reason for choosing 130 specifically myself, just that it exists.
1 Like
The commit message says “Disallow observations from over a human lifetime ago”, which I interpret to mean they would like observations that were personally observed by the uploader. But that’s just my take on it.
5 Likes
Maybe just an added filter to prevent uploading historic data not observed by the uploader? Pretty safe bet that no one living could have identified something >130 years ago!
Correct.
3 Likes
That makes sense.
The only thing that bothers me about that is if I find let’s say a deer tooth that I know to be around 70 years old it’s fine, but if I find one that’s 600 or 15,000 years old somehow it’s not…even though all of them come from the same faunal stage and I couldn’t have seen any of these individuals in life, but I guess that’s just how the system works.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.