Why would an observation uploaded with ID in subsection that contains wild species marked as cultivated by iNaturalist?

General
1

I understand:

“The system will vote that the observation is not wild/naturalized if there are at least 10 other observations of a genus or lower in the smallest county-, state-, or country-equivalent place that contains this observation and 80% or more of those observations have been marked as not wild/naturalized.”

But why would that pertain to subsection Bracteolatae in genus Viola in Prague, Czech Republic? There are several wild native species in the section (arvensis, tricolor) and there are many observations of these at the RG level in the region.

The observation in question https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/268818162 looks like a garden species or hybrid, but it is escaped from the very place of cultivation. In fact, I did not see it in any garden bed nearby.

2

I see it needs ID, I don’t see it marked casual though.

3

Has had a subsequent ID to the hybrid.
Question is about the previous ID to Subsection.

1 Like
4

Can you share a screenshot of the system marking an observation at subsection Bracteolatae as “not wild”? In your linked observation, there is no vote by the iNat system:

image
image807×152 9.74 KB

I uploaded an observation like that in Prague as a test and it did not mark it as “not wild”. I also uploaded an observation IDed as domestic dog in Prague and it did mark it as “not wild”.

1 Like
5

It is gone now, but my vote is there precisely because without it the observation was Casual.