1,645 species, narrowed to needs ID is 540. 67.2% RG.
many of them are things that are hard to get beyond genera. Like Waxcaps, or certain genera of spiders. So not really surprising.
1 Like
I reckon one should take it as a “lifetime achievement” of sorts: “I have almost certainly* met this species at least once.”
*“according to a bunch of supposedly knowledgeable people”
I’m impressed to say it’s at a whopping 48% RG observations (idk how you see by species) considering I post mainly insects, arachnids, and plants. Although if I put it down by category, I’d bet my mammals and reptiles are the bulk of the RG stuff. I mean, there are plenty of inverts that are just straight up hard to ID or the literature to help isn’t there, so I put them in a general category and there they stay.
Okay — I just used that link that @pisum posted and it says my best category is mammals at 94.9% RG and the worst is Fungi at 10% RG (exactly what I expected)
1 Like
If you want to up your fungi ratio I’d suggest looking at some guides on what to photograph on fungi - I know I saw a thread on it kicking around earlier today. Alas, won’t help much with the lichens. (You do have great pictures though, I envy people with good equipment for macro photography)
1 Like
Total observations 656, total species 508.
RG observations 336, RG species 294.
Observation ratio 51% RG, thus 49% Needs ID.
Species ratio 57% RG, thus 43% Needs ID.
I attribute the discrepancy to the fact that when I upload more than one of a given species, it is a species more likely to reach RG.
Testing this assertion:
38 observations of 31 species of birds.
35 RG observations of 29 species of birds (of which one I recently featured in the “What’s the worst picture you’ve uploaded?” thread.
So that’s 93% RG for birds.
Compared with:
64 observations of 47 species of Monocots
29 RG observations of 24 species of Monocots
So that’s 51% RG for Monocots.
9 observations of 8 species of amphibians
All of which are RG, for a 100% RG rate for amphibians.
15 observations of 12 species of reptiles
11 RG observations of 9 species of reptiles
For a 75% RG rate for reptiles.
But:
8 observations of 6 species of polypore fungi
Of which 1 is RG, for an RG rate of only 16%.
41 observations of 27 species of Agaricomycete fungi
18 RG observations of 16 species of Agaricomycete fungi
For 59% RG for species, but 44% RG for total observations.
So the picture is more nuanced than just that everyone IDs birds; at least for my numbers, amphibians have the birds beat, and vertebrates in general are better than plants, but the polypore fungi are worse. The Agaricomycetes also show that it can be misleading to focus just on species, because when observations are only classified to genus or family, each genus or family counts as one “species” which will not be RG; this is the problem pointed out by Rowan M:
20 observations IDed only as “Asteraceae” count in our statistics as 20 of the same species, even if they would in fact be different species if IDed further.
2 Likes
FWIW As mentioned earlier a few times there can be overlap with RG and Needs ID - I can see it being possible to having a few RG to many Needs IDs of the same species depending on quite a few things
81.72% of my observations are at RG
If I look at just species then things change a little.
My ratios of Relative to overall are the subject (ie RG Species) /total Total Species.
The Relative to category is just the species total at RG over the species I think I have.
Some of the Needs ID will never reach RG because: in the case of some insects, dissection needs to occur to differentiate; some sponges need to be examined under the microscope or by DNA bar coding; I have at least one as yet to be described bee species; and etc.
| Species | Relative to overall | Relative to category | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RG | 85.46% | I do a little pursuing of identifiers (in high moderation), I try to present a reasonably focussed image that is cropped and sometimes multiple images to support with the gestalt - some of these are really not so hot but have out of focus details that help such as colour banding on bumblebees. | |||
| Needs ID | 24.79% | some of the needs ID are species that have equivalent observtions that are at RG | |||
| Threatened RG | 10.38% | 96.46% | I’ve been fortunate to live in and visit some special places but with that there are issues… | ||
| Introduced RG | 4.79% | 88.30% | house sparrow, rabbits, pigeons, Dingo, western honey bees, European Paper Wasp, Cane toad,… | ||
| Popular RG | 5.14% | 84.38% | some day I’ll understand why | ||
| Sound RG | 0.60% | 90.48% | for some, this is my only observation of that species | ||
| Birds | 51.48% | 96.20% | they are charismatic, jump out, and are noticed and therefore get observed more and hence are identified | ||
| Amphibians | 0.38% | 92.31% | not looking hard enough | ||
| Reptiles | 2.16% | 91.89% | some bigger than a bread box | ||
| Mammals | 5.65% | 97.27% | most are bigger than a bread box | ||
| Fish | 0.92% | 85.29% | the odd time I’ve snorkled or just seen from shore | ||
| Mollusks | 2.67% | 89.06% | probably under observed relative to opportunity and probably if I didn’t have a thing against mortes | ||
| Arachnids | 0.63% | 60.61% | still give me a start… | ||
| Insects | 11.81% | 65.72% | this is probably where my growth is and locally we have a good community looking at this and we support each other in learning | ||
| Plants | 7.05% | 68.52% | my original intention was to stick to fauna but somethings need to be noted and now I’m looking at pollinators more | ||
| Fungi incl. Lichen | 0.32% | 31.25% | biased on the charismatic | ||
| Protozoan | 0 | some day | |||
| Bacteria | 0.03% | 50.00% | only one species so far |
I get @pisum 's point but hereyago
5 Likes
For species 882 Research Grade : 453 Needs ID. Almost exactly 1/3 of the observations already ID’d to species observed still need a confirming ID.
This doesn’t really work well as a ratio though, because there are also a lot of observations that are stuck at the genus or higher level.
Of actual observations 1290 are Research Grade and 1039 are Needs ID, so of actual observations the ratio that needs ID is closer to 45%.
at a species level: 1342 total species. If I select “Research Grade” it’s 1,103.
Total observations: 12,201. RG: 10,621.
Where and what are you observing?
@murphyslab I am spoilt since my Fynbos Ramblers is focused on our wildflowers, with knowledge to share (including a few birders, so we get that too!)
And pisum’s link
Birds, reptiles and amphibians a clear 100% (birds yes - but the littl’uns is from pushing @mentions)
Mammals 80% (but for very few obs)
Plants 79% (mostly from deliberately useful pictures and poking an identifier … again)
Spiders 67% (I know who to poke - they must see me coming and duck off the internet!)
Molluscs 50%
Insects 46%
Fungi 16% (bad photos, I am learning to knock one over for the gills)
2 Likes
I was curious what my ratio was the other day. Does iNat calculate this for you, or did you do it manually (lots of tedium)? If iNat calculates it, how does one go about doing this? Thanks.
@pisum Very useful query!!!
1 Like
I have a good amount of oaks but they mostly get to RG. I think it’s mainly because I live in a small town in the woods as even the more common species can take a while to get to RG. I also have a lot of fungi and they rarely get too RG
1 Like
To get your total Species count and total Species count at RG, go to your Home or Dashboard main page, click on “Your Observations” at the top, note the number of Species (not observations), click “Filters” (upper right) and apply “Research Grade,” click Filters again to close it and see the new Species count - your RG species. Divide that by your original Species number, then x 100 to get the percentage.
1 Like
My numbers are:
- 16.667 out of 34.067 observations are research grade = 48,9%
- 2395 out of 3609 species are research grade = 66,3%
I uploaded a lot of hard to identify species (mushroom, lichens, etc).
Thanks to everyone that helps with identify any observation.
2 Likes
62% (916 of 1484) of my species are RG while 48% of my species need ids. I assume that means 10% of my species have both RG and needs id observations.
60% (2405 of 4000) of my observations are RG.
These numbers seem consistent with what many other users are seeing.
I agree with the (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) comment that if you want research grade observations, take photos of birds. 97% of my bird observations are RG and oftentimes they are identified within minutes. Any mammal observations are easy also; 90% of mine are RG.
On the other hand, only 15% of my fungi observations are RG.
Seriously, though. If you want good plant observations, follow a simple rules:
-
Take clear photos in good light. Sometimes I can identify using fuzzy photos but not that often.
-
Get close enough to show the detail. Sometimes, I need to see those little hairs on the stems and buds.
Cell phone photos of a low plant taken while you are standing do not show good detail. The zoom on many cell phones is a digital zoom so it does not improve the detail. Cell phones with multiple lenses might do better. I take my cell phone photos from inches away. -
Take multple photos from different angles.
Many of my identifications are of the poppies of California (Eschscholzia). Many observations have a single photo showing the simple, top view of the flower. The hardest photo to use for an identification is a simple, top view of the flower. There are 12 species in California and that common view can look the same for most species. We need to see the backs or sides of the flower. We need to see both the upper and lower leaves. -
Give a sense of scale.
An additional photo that shows the setting or gives the size of the plant does help. Perhaps, for your last photo step back and take a photo of the whole plant showing the setting. Or include some known object in one of the photos: a finger, a coin, a key, a ruler, etc.
3 Likes
large mammals yeah. Rodents though, wew boy. I’ve got some that have been up for years.
2 Likes
Agreed. Almost all of my “needs id” mammals are rodents (squirrels, gophers, rats, voles). Plus one rabbit and one hoof print.
1 Like
I’m at 5,080 verifiable observations
of which, 2,903 are Research Grade
which gives me a percentage of about 57%. Pretty close to 50/50 as I’ve seen form others posting here.
This is probably because I post a lot of plant observations, many of which I even don’t know further than genus. 3,254 (64%) of my verifiable observations are of plants as of my writing this, so that probably knocks down my percentage a fair bit.
1 Like
1833 observations, 1324 verifiable (782 RG, 59%), 508 captive. Only 1 unknown (well, all I know it’s an animal but I am waiting for someone to listen and say if it’s a frog or a bug).
In the captive, it would be nice to know what needs ID even if it won’t make it to research grade. I know it’s a divise topic, but I upload them for my “seen-that” record and remove the captive observation once I have a wild one.
How to improve? I can testify that birds, birds, birds (93% RG). But I’m surprised that my observations the most famous seal in Sydney aren’t RG:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/168243346
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/173371405
I don’t aim for a high RG, I have some “plants” and “dicots” where I all I have is a couple of leaves or just a flower. What needs ID may not make it beyond family or genus, that’s ok with me.
2 Likes
Observations, RG/total: 1504/1654 (91%)
Species, RG/total: 1023/1099 (93%)
Don’t ask me how many images I have on my computer that need to be edited and uploaded.
I agree that it is hard to get ID’s on plants. I often try to take diagnostic photos having looked at a key, but it is hard to get most people to go into that level of detail on an ID. I don’t blame my contacts, it can be very tedious to try to verify an ID from photos at, say, species level.
I wish I could get more help with mushrooms!
Quick edit on grammar and clarity.
1 Like