I am an enthusiastic amateur. One of the things I really miss in a lot of species descriptions when I am trying to identify things are the features that cannot be independently identified over the internet, but which a knowledgeable naturalist at my elbow (should i be lucky enough to have one) would point out, for example that hange hange leaves feel a bit like lightly sweaty skin, or the many distinctive smells, eg:
-
crushed leaves that smell like lemon
-
a comment that the flowers are strongly scented, and maybe whether this is only at night
*kakapo bird described as having a musty-sweet odor
-
the distinctive smell of certain species scat (otter spraint has a musky/ fishy smell, with "a sweet taint surprisingly similar to jasmine tea).
-
A friend told me recently he could identify being in a tanekaha forest with his eyes shut because of the distinctive smell of the leaf mould.
In the case of plant species that have been described a long time ago from dried specimens, perhaps by people who never actually saw the plant in situ, this is perhaps less surprising I guess, but still.
If wine connoisseurs and perfumers can do it?
Yes, it is not something we can record in the way we do a sound or a sighting for independent verification, but is there any other reason why do we seem to ignore these important senses âŚ? If it is simply because we donât think to, and if so, is there a way we can ânudgeâ people to record distinctive sensory associations?