The discussion on this observation suggests that in some circumstances, in some regions, it may be better to leave something at Unknown unless you know at least the family.
That’s the #1 case of accounts who post unknowns, as long as I remember there was even a separate topic on this if not two. (e.g. in topic about big users posting unknowns )
because, they, often know exactly what it is - then get annoyed when a helpful identifier offers something else. Gerroffmylawn attitude
@vreinkymov that is a neat way of capturing my - hook line and sinker approach - if my ID is wrong, I pick up notifications, and we get it from Unknown to pointing in the right direction.
and 40K African plants waiting for competent identifiers to move them thru family to …
I can’t even try. I need to get to the 2K Unknowns which have doubled since I lost the plot. It doesn’t help to move 2K to join the 40K.
Those numbers will balloon again with the Southern Bioblitz in October.
4 Likes
Referencing again the discussion on the observation I linked earlier: @tonyrebelo said,
Plants is a rubbish bin for plants that cannot be identified.
No expert in this part of the world will ever get a chance to look at plants: we are already overwhelmed with plants to our families.
Meaning that, contrary to conventional iNat wisdom, adding a broad ID such as “plants” actually makes it less likely that an expert will see the observation. At least in a place like Africa.
Here is a prime example:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/66619962
It is very obviously Arecaceae, a palm. So why did it languish at “Plants” for two years? Because someone identified it to “plants” instead of either leaving it at Unknown or identifying it to family. Experts in Seychelles palms never saw it; the identification as “plants” made sure of that. Now that it has been identified to family, someone who knows what it is might actually see it.
Here is another:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/25267070
I’m pretty sure it is a clover, Genus Trifolium. Not that difficult to identify. Yet there it sat as “plants” for three years. Again, in Africa, giving such a broad ID actually prevents experts from seeing it.
The upshot is, in parts of the world where there are few experts, it is better to leave Unknowns as Unknowns unless you know at least the family.
That one conversation with Tony Rebelo has changed my whole approach. My identification activity these past few days is to look at exact_taxon_id of “Plants” in location Africa. I don’t know much about African flora; but I do know the defining characteristics of several plant families, and on every page, I can usually get a few to family, and occasionally genus. We need more of this cleaning out of the rubbish bin.
You are quite right. So those of us who know plant families can take a few cracks at the 40K, even if we don’t know African species.
3 Likes
Thank you - that will make a huge difference.
Since iNat punishes a Plantae plus ssp or var - I am now using this workaround
Supporting ssp against Plantae
which is probably irritating someone, but I withdraw when my support against Planty is no longer needed to fend off the iNat Won’t Dragon.
This is interesting to me since I was about to post a topic asking about the tactics of sticking an approximate ID onto one of my unknown observations. I found a pupa and made the obs below:
https://uk.inaturalist.org/observations/135160672
The AI suggested something that looked similar but I have no knowledge at all on this subject. I could leave it at Genus level and hope someone who knows about the Genus either confirms or downgrades it, or I could move it back to Unknown and, on the off chance that it is something else, then someone may pick up what it actually is based of their specialism. Or I guess I could hatch the pupa myself and confirm the occupant that way…
Interesting take on things - I disagree that Plantae is a rubbish bin unlikely to get refined, but that probably depends on the ID flow of the most active identifiers were you are. I am one of those who does look at Plantae all the time to refine what I can so I don’t mind people putting things there. I think of it as a more narrowly-defined subset of the unknown pool without animals and fungi (usually). But I rarely spread out beyond my usual area of the world since that’s where I know the plants best.
It can be overwhelming when you first tackle that bin. Personally, if I feel I need to narrow it down to have a lower and thus more encouraging number, I use smaller geographic areas or look at just one month at a time, or e.g. look at all observations before 2015 to give the older ones a look. There is also a handy link I’ve bookmarked to check out things stuck at Plantae due to disagreements, some of which are pretty straight-forward to resolve.
4 Likes
That’s the ichneumonid of course, but using cv still isn’t the best idea, it’s better if you add id you’re sure in and if you don’t want to wait - tag someone who ids insects.
1 Like
In a case where it looks like higher taxon X but I’m not sure, I may name it X and let others sort it out. For example, if it looks like a caterpillar I name it Lepidoptera, though I’ve learned some “caterpillars” are sawflies. People correct these errors.
2 Likes
Thanks to your link, I check planty disagreements for the Cape Peninsula, then South Africa, then Africa, each day.
It shouldn’t be. A correct high level identification only removes it from the “unknown” bin, and the observer should have no reason to be annoyed that this was done.
2 Likes
It’s because they have unique workflow that goes against how iNat is expected to work as a user system, there’re ways to make it not happen, but requests for draft mode an similar stuff are up there for years, so it’d be better if they adapted and either stopped uploading unknowns or not be annoyed but ids.
4 Likes
Plus, there’s no way to be sure whether a given user will ever follow-up. I have seen discussions on observations where the observer ends up saying that they will go back for a better picture – then, nothing. No better picture, no link to a new observation. No surprise that most of us go by what is there now, not by what will supposedly be there in the future.
5 Likes
To be honest, the fact that someone is annoyed by an ID being added to something they uploaded as unknown doesn’t really bother me in the slightest. They’ll get over it…
11 Likes
Would be helpful if they set the ID as “Do Not ID” or something like that. I don’t always look at the notes, but if I saw that as ID, I would skip it.
1 Like
I don’t see how this would be the case. Plant experts are not MORE likely to search in unknowns than in plants. Identifying an unknown to species is ideal. Identifying it to genus is 2nd best. Identifying it to family is next. Identifying it as a plant is better than nothing but not as good as lower levels. Not sure why that’s not obvious. However, identifying an unknown plant as some random plant species may get attention quicker (because experts of that species will recognize it as incorrect and can probably place it to at least genus or family). But somehow, ethically, that seems a poor approach to me.
2 Likes
I agree! I recently started adding unknowns to my ID-range and it doubles and sometimes triples the observations that I need to review. I can see why someone with a much broader geographic range might filter for just plants, for example.
One can write “Do NOT identify this observation” as a note or comment. I did that for observations for my class to identify and people here complied. They did that so well that a few that I forgot were unidentified two years later, until I remembered them and changed the notations. So, we do have a way to make sure our observations aren’t identified, if we care.
9 Likes
I suggest using the “based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?” feature to mark your rubbish bin. If this is not suited to your purposes (e.g., doesn’t filter in a way that is useful), then I suggest making a feature request. Considering I had a very similar interaction with the same user linked in your previous comments, the issue is likely to repeat itself as new identifiers try to help clear the unknown category.
1 Like
if you are in a First World country with many botanists available to identify.
Try this 40K from Africa
We need help please. I am clearing Unknowns first, and never do get to Needs ID. That 40K doesn’t melt at all!