I’d say start IDing things that you, yourself find in the field (say if you observe Senecio venosus today, and the ID is confirmed, go use you photos as a guide to ID other observations of that species), and try ID unknowns or kingdoms/phylum observations to class at least, you can use AI to help with that if you struggle, once you get the hang of that you can try class things into lower classifications like family. And always check your notifications, and correct your mistakes, read the comments left on the corrections and don’t be shy to ask questions
6 Likes
You may find a useful project for your preferred location
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/biodiversity-of-cape-town?tab=species
there you can see what is Most Observed. Either because it is, everywhere. Or lookit ! Cute! Eye candy. Then you can choose one to learn first.
2 Likes
I’d suggest finding a taxon that only has a few species in the area you want to ID in, learn how to differentiate between those few species, and then start working through that taxon in your ID area. I also think it’s best to ID things you’ve seen a few times yourself, at least until you’re more confident IDing that broader taxon
9 Likes
Identifying unknowns into the right bucket is one good option, but it’s also good to suggest a couple of very different options. One is to choose a species that you know well and set the filter to eliminate everything that’s already research grade. One advantage of this option is that folks who don’t yet realize the importance of including identifying characteristics quickly learn this and our own observations improve as a result.
4 Likes
Learn some smaller group of organisms that you will be able to ID. It does not have to be a family or order. And it definitely does not have to be all species of this group on the continent. I almost only ID for my country and it is a small one.
I concentrate on some selected groups that interest me. Sometimes it is a specific genus from groups that I otherwise do not know that well. I second that it is good if it is something that you can meet outside, but it is not completely essential, especially not for the rarer species in your selected group. You can than enjoy when you finally find the species for real.
I do plants and there are many groups that are too difficult for a beginner (some really requier specialists), and observations often miss the important characters, but there are some that are easier. And although many observations get there ID quickly, there are many that slip through, although they are well identifiable and everyone who helps to look for those is helpful.
4 Likes
93.71% of observations on iNat miss a basic Alive or Dead annotation (mine included). I have been trying to add annotations to some taxa like Chrysilla volupe (the female was described quite recently, so I was trying to find the ratio of sexes (it’s about 2:1 male to female)).
It would be good if some new identifiers could add annotations as well.
5 Likes
Great suggestion! I tried this, and was much more successful. There is a very noticeable difference in the average quality of the observations marked pterygota rather than just insects. A lot of the former have photos clearly taken with ID in mind, while many of the blurry single shots from far away are stuck at “Insect.”
Where I was able to improve maybe 1 in 15 “Insect” observations, I could do something about roughly one in 7 “pterygota” observations I looked at.
7 Likes
Another thing I like to do when looking at the “Pterygote” level is to select “Disagreements”, and you’ll get a lot of observations with IDs in two different orders, which I’ve found are the ones I’m most likely to be able to help with. It also highlights the common pitfalls of insect order ID, like beetles vs. bug nymphs, leaf miner flies vs. leaf miner moths, caterpillars vs. sawflies, micro-moths vs. micro-caddisflies, Psylloids vs. Plant Lice, etc. I’ve learned a lot about oddball insect groups by going through these.
14 Likes
This!
Been reading the replies - and this one resonated with me - when I started out with identifications some time ago. I did not realize at that time (years back) that it was a bit of the “deep end of the pool” to start there - but I was intrigued by observing Hawks in a nearby urban nature park. Did not know the difference between Red-tailed, Cooper’s, Sharp-shinned, Kestrel, and wondered if a Magpie was a Hawk too? So I observed and listened to identifiers comments, picked up guides, tacked on nuances of markers, and the identification process became ‘reinforcing’ and built more confidence. From there other interests expanded and confidence was incremental, yet measured. One does not have to “stay in your lane” (heard that a few times) but it seems that building up the competence and the confidence was not akin to ‘turning on the light switch’ - in hindsight this from Shakespeare, “Because sweet flowers are slow and weeds make haste” is sort of the process for identification.
p.s. shout out to Scrub Jays - because - you know - nuances in the field with Woodhouse’s, California, Belding’s, etc.
7 Likes
I just tried the question mark icon in filters (which results in Bacteria as well as Life) sorted backward, and I wouldn’t put a newbie through that. Lots of microorganisms and pictures where I couldn’t tell what was going on.
Fortunately, there’s a filter to remove Bacteria, Viruses, and Life from Unknown. (Courtesy of Kevinfaccenda) I’ve used it before to make broad identifications of life in Hawaii (largely flowering plants, and especially dicots).
3 Likes
“we clearly need help with Iris, Quercus, and Lupinus” plus Dandelions – true but at least in my area, those all have serious taxonomic and/or identification problems. Taxonomic hell holes, even. And sometimes the depth of the taxonomic quicksand varies by location. Here in Oregon, there’s only one Banana Slug (except maybe in the far SW corner). In California, there are several and they can’t be identified from photos, though sometimes by range. (How do I know about the slug confusion in California? Guess.)
My advice would be: Can you recognize a plant, insect, mollusc, or fungus in your area? Set the filters for that taxon in your area and start sending “Needs ID” observations to RG – and sometimes weeding out photos of something misidentified as your organism. Pull up a higher taxonomic level* in your area; can you pick out your chosen organism from the many photos? You will gradually expand your knowledge.
What if you make a mistake? Duh. If you identify, you’ll make mistakes. I should know – I’ve made literally thousands of them. Just withdraw your ID (if you agree that you’re wrong), maybe learn something (or not), and move on.
- (If you look at the Taxon page for your organism, you can click on the Taxonomy tab and see the whole list of taxonomic groups that contain it.)
5 Likes
Not sure if this fits “under-IDed”, but another alternative is to use the filters to only see observations made by accounts that are less then a week old: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?user_after=1w (I often then filter by California for me, so I can help ID things to species)
You can look for common new user mistakes like people posting observations of non-wild organisms and not marking them as such, or not adding an ID, or posting photos of multiple organisms in the same observation and Use a text expander browser extension to quickly enter frequently-used text to enter helpful tips.
12 Likes
A gentle reminder to (newbie) identifiers.
- If your ID is tentative / uncertain , check the distribution map, again.
- Please follow your notifications, so you can withdraw or reconsider as needed. For the next identifier, it is less work if yours was Broadly Right, rather than (needs more than two thirds) Narrowly Wrong.
7 Likes
I’d like to add my recommendationto this. Annotations are a really good way to familiarize yourself with what’s out there, without some of the pressure of IDing.
Plus, it’s kind of amazing what you pick up by osmosis. (“Hey, the initial ID is ___, but it looks a lot like this other thing that I just looked at. What’s the difference?”) It doesn’t take long to develop a level of comfort with common species in your area, and you can use that as a point to start getting your feet wet—even moving Unknowns into a smaller bucket is incredibly useful.
8 Likes
While you could of course pick some relatively easy taxa or do high level IDs, one other option is to specialize in something tricky that you find interesting and have the ability to learn. After finding some morel mushrooms last Spring, I realized that morel identification is quite difficult and that there is a shortage of identifiers for them. I was interested enough that I stuck with it, originally for the sole purpose of being able to identify the morels I found.
After putting in an unwise amount of time learning to identify morels, it seemed like a waste to only ID my three observations, so I began to ID for others. I’ve previously done a very small amount of IDing for easy/obvious species, but found this quite boring because it felt like the correct ID would be reached regardless of whether I helped. Morel ID feels more meaningful because observations can go months or years without ID or end up at research grade with the wrong ID. And because many morel species are semi-cryptic (highly variable appearance that overlaps between species; they can only sometimes be identified and differences can be subtle), the more observations I look through, the better I get at IDing.
If this sort of approach appeals to you, look through your own observations. Is there one you learned to identify yourself that you find interesting? Is there one that you most wish you had an ID for but doesn’t have any identifier, one you think you can learn with time/research? Focus on that one and start reading up on it! If you’re going to do this, make sure you understand all of the reasons why IDing the taxa is difficult before you do so yourself. Be careful not to succumb to Dunning-Kruger and add a bunch of overconfident IDs before you know what you’re doing. If there is another expert identifier, look through the observations they have identified and see if you understand how they made those IDs (and if you would be able to do so independently). I’ve got several other tips for going down this route, but that’s probably beyond the intended scope of this thread. This approach is best suited to someone with an analytical mind and some experience with the sciences and/or the natural world, but new to identifying on iNaturalist. If you’ve never learned any species or identified anything at all even outside of iNaturalist, I’d follow the conventional advice to start with something easier.
13 Likes
I agree with the sentiment that it is hard to generalize, as people come from very different backgrounds into the IDing game.
I get the suggestion to start putting very general taxa or maybe even unknowns in smaller pockets.. it IS an extremely helpful and needed work and it sure is a good idea to get this message out there as often as possible. I think some might shy away from this kind of IDing because they might think one would at least need to be able to ID at family or genus level to make a difference. But well, everything that helps to get an observations in front of the right eyeballs is very much appreciated. I (spider IDer) for example do also filter for Araneae, and many people are able to recognize a spider in a bucket full of observations and thus put it into a spider IDers lane.
However, I myself started on the other end of IDing - getting into certain species I uploaded and help out with those. So I feel this can be the more involving way of starting to ID. And I still do this from time to time with non-spider observations I upload. I might get an ID and will start to research how this species will be distinguished from similar ones.. or the IDer even left a helpful note (If not, but you are interested - ask!). Or I dig myself into some literature to find an ID to one of my observations. No matter how I got the knowledge, once I realized that there are easy characteristics I can recognize, I will often check if there are more observations like mine around me and go and ID them (maybe first check observations at species ID that need a second vote and once one is comfortable enough, go to genus and pick the species you now know out of that pile). As a bonus, that also helps solidify my new knowledge in the hope of me knowing the species next time I encounter it.. I did this a lot for example with Membracidae and am still number 4 IDer for those in Colombia, despite this taxa being far out of my typical IDer lane… also shows how much need there is
10 Likes
I’d suggest that people should only ID what they are certain about. So if someone is certain they can correctly ID a particular plant order, then that’s what they should do. People shouldn’t be guessing unless it’s truly a crapshoot, but even then a comment would be far more appropriate, rather than an actual ID.
I’d suggest that if someone wants to get started IDing some stuff, then hitting the unknowns and getting them to at least phylum, or order, or family, or something like that would be useful, as many of the skilled IDers have filters set to only look at plants, or echinoderms, or insects, or whatever, so if it’s only to the level of “life” or “unknown”, then they’ll never see it.
So if a person feels confident they can correctly ID an unknown as a “plant”, or “insect”, or “animal” or whatever then that’s what they should stick to. If the person feels confident IDing a particular species of plant or animal, then sure, go for it, but if they can’t tell the different between 60 different species of butterfly and moths, then they should stick it at Lepidoptera and leave it there.
Bugs me when I put up an unknown plant and someone throws in a guess that I know is definitively wrong based on really obvious signs. I might not be able to figure out what family it’s in, but I know damn sure it’s not a potato…
8 Likes
Mosses are very under IDed in my region, but as for feasible. . . I guess that would depend on the individual. They’re tricky, but new to IDing on iNat doesn’t necessarily mean new to studying nature in general, and even someone who is new to the latter, might still be passionate enough to gather resources and quickly become expert at a fairly small niche.
If some young naturalist in Michigan is reading this, please consider becoming a moss expert! We clearly need one!
5 Likes
IMHO, the value of many annotations are useful and self-evident, but could you give me some examples of when “alive/dead” status of an organism in an observation is useful?
2 Likes
When looking for areas that get a lot of roadkill, one might want to search for observations of dead mammals.
When looking for tidepools, one might want to search only for live sea star observations.
8 Likes