Don't make "organism is not wild" observations casual grade

[Robert Taylor]

I get very frustrated when one of my observations gets devalued to being casual grade and unworthy of research. Surely only the end user can make this call, and even then it would only be unworthy of HIS or HER research. When someone  ticks the thumbs-down under "Organism is wild" I disagree that the observation should become casual. I am not posting images of my pets - I am posting images of research significance. As casual grade my observations don't receive much attention, if any!

I will provide three examples from my observations: 

1) https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/13730775 - I am compiling a list of alien plants in Maun (my home town) and this is crucially important as these plants are having a HUGE impact on the Okavango Dela, a world heritage site. In this case I noted that this Duranta erecta was growing in the town. I am not trying to hoodwink anyone that it was growing feral - I have listed it as growing in a garden under habitat! However this species is an invasive species prohibited by law in South Africa. It is very much of research importance that I have noted the presence of this invasive species in Maun!

2) https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/10966792 - I don't disagree that these trees were planted within this game reserve (another world heritage site). However this is important in more than one way. There is a bug that lives on London Plane tree and where these trees are it creates habitat for that bug - (so potential habitat for a non-native bug). These trees have been growing and thriving here for many many years unattended (so when does it become wild?) All white rhinos throughout Africa outside of Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Park have been "planted" as part of a reintroduction program, arguably having been attended to in bomas for a larger proportion of their lives than these trees have been attended to as seedlings - do we go ahead and tick that rhino are not wild?

Which brings me to 3) https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/13287300 - a cow which has been herded into a wildlife reservation and world heritage site - living side by side with the rhino which were also herded into the same reserve. The only difference is that the the cow is illegal and the rhino was a government sanctioned import from South Africa and Zimbabwe (Rhino were extinct in Botswana until 2001). The large numbers of cows are a huge ecological threat and should be of Research Grade. We know where the rhino are - as we put them there - and these could be made casual grade -  no one want your observation of a rhino on iNat (not researchers, not lodge owners and most importantly not anti-poaching! - but I don't go around sticking my nose into other peoples business and down-grading their rhino observations).

[Sam Kieschnick]

 Hey Robert,

Yeah, this has been discussed in some detail... There is a bit of a gray area on what is considered wild.  From way early on:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/inaturalist/feral$20cats%7Csort:date/inaturalist/-E0pXkzV7pc/F9Vi0XwfXBgJ

And then recently as well:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/inaturalist/feral$20cats|sort:date/inaturalist/uBTN8EncPS4/CUgcZD8AEQAJ

I am one that goes through many observations and marks them as captive/cultivated especially when the observation is obviously of an animal in a cage/zoo or when a plant is clearly in a flower garden.  It's quite true that these organisms are still ecologically important!  With feral cats, these are 'borderline' captive, and we see that they are crucial ecosystem influencers.  In restoration projects, many of the plants are cultivated and seeded in an area, so are they wild?  Again, there is a lot of gray.

It's mostly unfortunate that "research grade" gets placed on such a high pedestal that all other observations seem unworthy or devalued.  I try to remind folks that ALL observations are important and informative.  If a researcher does want to study the impact of all organisms in the ecosystem in a specific area, then he/she/they can filter and see all observations (even the casual grade).  As someone comes to mine the data, then he/she/they can filter -- so observations that aren't "research grade" are still used in research!

[Whitney Mattila]

Yeah, it's something I wish there was a separate category for. The casual category's becoming a void of no return in some ways, and the potential information people can get from observations like these can be very valuable.

[Robert Taylor]

It begs the question - do we really need an arbitrary Research Grade and do we need to downgrade some observations to casual? Should it not be up to the data user to decide what is RG and what is casual?

Users of iNat could instead input what level he/she would like to review observations to, eg. you could go to "Needs ID" and then select observations with none or 1 ID to view the current "Needs ID" page, but you could also look for all the observations with 4 or less identifications, basically allowing the user to decide what is RG or not. At the same point users could decide if they want to exclude observations which are not wild - but these observations are never labeled as casual.

Doing away with RG will solve the above mentioned problem.

[Charlie Hohn]

we do need some sort of cutoff and criteria for things like the range map display, what is used by algorithm, lists, etc

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

============================
Charlie Hohn
Montpelier, Vermont

[bouteloua]

It's not quite as easy as total number of IDs--a wild observation could have dozens of IDs and still not be research grade if those IDs aren't mostly in agreement. See below, from Scott. It would be nice to implement that "community ID piece"--show observations with at least 2 IDs and >2/3 agreement on a taxon...or filter by a sliding scale of percentage of agreement as has been suggested by others here before.

FWIW I'm also not interested in 99%+ of the captive/cultivated observations on iNat, but do recognize the value of some of the more interesting fringe cases like new invading plant species and planted habitat.

cassi

--

So you guys want a way to search for captive obs that would otherwise be research grade? ie have a community ID of species rank or lower and don't have any issues with location etc? I think we can do all of that except the community ID piece currently: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?captive=true&photos&place_id=any&subview=grid&verifiable=any&rank=species

One issue we were talking about in the office is that people don't tend to ID captive stuff (even before we buried them by defaulting to showing non-captive obs in search) I think because:

1) naturalists tend not to be interested in captive stuff (I know I'm not)

2) location is really key to ID'ing things and its not super useful for captive stuff

3) often captive species don't work well with taxonomies (weird cultivars and breeds and hybrids)

If folks are interested in ID'ing captive stuff here's a handy URL:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?quality_grade=needs_id%2Ccasual&verifiable=any&captive=true&photos=true

[Whitney Mattila]

Yeah. I see their value more as a gardener, but someone just brought up a good point here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/13749741

They can also be great in cases where it's a population that's trying to be reintroduced to an area.

I'll have to disagree on the subject of research grade, though. Having a research grade helps here in letting people know a general consensus has been reached. With plants that have casual status, I can't tell if there's been one ID or many. It has its faults, but it's a good marker to keep, say, students under duress IDs in check. :)

[Charlie Hohn]

This seems to come up again and again. One of the issues with planted things is they are nearly useless for spatial ecology because they are put there by people and don't have to be able to survive in a natural environment (granted there are some grey areas such as planted trees, restoration sites, etc). 

I guess ultimately we just need another category, not research grade but not casual either, maybe 'community grade'? 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Whitney Mattila]

Yeah, that's what I think would be best. I also want people to find it easy to use iNat for wild populations. It'd be neat to have similar functions, and I could see that separation being useful.

Some examples: someone wants to compare, say, confirmed species of culivated pear trees and wild pear trees to see where more troubling hybrids are appearing, or a population increase/decrease in an area in a species of butterfly being compared to the numbers of culivated host plant(s).

... Of course, I'm not even sure these would be legit things people would look at, so I may be wrong, haha.

[Riviera S]

There's a bit of misunderstanding here so I hope I can answer it.

First off, in iNat's sense the "not wild" check really means "not naturalized". "Not naturalized" indicates that it is a one-off, or occasional record, that was heavily influenced by humans. A plant or tree that was placed by hand is "not naturalized", until there is evidence that it is seeding and producing further trees. Animals that have escaped (livestock, pet birds, rabbits) are "not naturalized", until they create colonies and perpetuate the species there. "Not naturalized" records are just that -- something that is not spreading, or posing a current impact on a medium or large scale.

Secondly, research grade is not always a formal label. Research grade is a basic clear-cut system for sorting wild from non-wild observations (zoos, gardens). Just because important records don't get research grade doesn't mean we think they are not useful. Research grade only submits the record to GBIF (a database of WILD organisms). Research grade is not the ultimate indication that something is useful for research, the same way "Casual" is not an indication that the record is useless.

In response to Robert's examples directly:

1. This is a planted tree so it is "not naturalized", AKA "not wild".

2. London planes are almost always sterile -- so this is best marked as "not naturalized" in all cases. But here, it seems clear it was planted purposefully in a row. So I would say this is a guarantee.

3. The cow is not feral. It is "not naturalized", AKA "not wild".

In all 3 cases, the "not wild" tag is completely deserved. I'm sorry that the lack of research grade disappoints you Robert, but please don't be discouraged. Your sightings, even marked as "not wild", are still available in searches, and on the website, for others to view. Research grade is primarily for off-site use.

[Colin Meurk]

as everyone who has followed this debate knows, i'm totally with Robert, Sam and Whitney on this :-).

I've been threatening a 17 point refutation of the current approach - oh well, here is the 8 point version (some of which harks back to earlier correspondents) :-) ...

1. Research Grade should mean only that the name is authentic – at any taxonomic level (as per Donald Hobern, Tony Rebelo, Jon Sullivan) – that it has been verified by a second opinion (not counting AI). We shouldn’t second guess what is of scientific merit (see 8).To treat C/D somehow as of no research merit, and pandering only to ‘real science’ (Durey) is purely an expression of a personal preference of what constitutes scientific interest.

2. To treat C/D somehow as of no research merit, and pandering only to ‘real science’ (Durey) is purely an expression of a personal preference of what constitutes scientific interest.

3. One might argue that even zoo animals interact with ‘natural’ and social environments, altho this category seems most frowned upon – even tho as Carrie has said, it is often the entrée to going wild with iNaturalist. All have valid research potential – ecologically, taxonomically, biogeographically, sociologically, culturally, biosecurity-wise, disease host availability, etc. (notwithstanding Lincoln Durey).

4. Mapping (and map ranges) – yes of course we want to distinguish natural/wild distributions from planted/cultivated/domesticated distributions from self-established individuals beyond their known natural range. The second would include both exotic and indigenous cultivated specimens and the latter would include invasive exotic spp as well as regenerating indigenous species outside their natural range. Indigenous and exotic are identified in the symbol associated with the taxon at top of each record page.

5. The simplest solution would be to use distinctive point symbols for each of these classes - as we currently do for colour representing taxonomic groups and flags or blobs representing precise versus obscured locations. E.g. a solid colour for naturally occurring records in their natural range; an empty flag with a coloured border would designate planted/domesticated, and an empty flag with a coloured dot in the middle would represent naturalised records. A cross could be inserted over the symbol if the species is exotic to the country. The important value of this would be that one could immediately see where species seemed to be wrongly assigned in parts of their range, and drill down to those records and, based on the associated information, correct the designation as appropriate. This will achieve crowd-refinement of distribution.

6. In summary – the declaration that non-wild records are deemed inferior to ecological science and knowledge at lay or scientific level is totally arbitrary – as outlined above. It is worse than that because it is demotivating to novices, many of whom are recording garden or urban records as an entrée to becoming more observant in the great outdoors. It will appear to them that their records are inferior, whereas there is no rational basis for this. Invasive exotics are undesirable but that is a different matter to scientific value. We are surely trying to engage more people in observing the world and recording it. Indeed there is a very real scientific reason for wanting to see both natural and naturalised distributions clearly distinguished as suggested above – and that is to define ‘actual/potential’ versus ‘realised’ niches a totally legit science question. It should be available every time I look at a map; not have to go into some additional data search and retrieval algorithm. Furthermore, there is a danger that people will obfuscate the true status of a record if they perceive it will be downgraded. Finally, international opinion does not support this distinction – GBIF is perfectly happy to receive cultivated records with the understanding that they are properly designated.

7. Thus the only criteria for RG should be that there is a crowd-agreed name (including generic or family level) and that there is the minimum metadata of time, place and observer.

8. Can we do this please?

cheers colin 

[tony rebelo]

What really upsets me is that I post an observation for an ID, and then some officious curator comes along and it changes from "Needs ID" to "Casual" simply because it is a garden plant or a caged animal, rather than a wild one.

But usually it doest have an ID yet, and it now no longer shows up as needing an ID.

My interest is not in if it is wild or not: I already know that it is planted.  But I want an ID.  And my observation is now off the radar.

Even the ID tool, routinely leaves out casual observations as if they are not significant.  How many people using the tool know that they have to especially turn on "casual" observations in order for them to show up?  As a consequence, observations flagged as "not wild" never get identified.

The system is flawed by muddling up the Identification process with the GBIF qualifications.   I fully agree that there should be a GBIF grade of observations.  But RESEARCH grade should be independent of whether the data is used by any one institution or not.

Keep the identification process separate from the different end user needs.  Muddling them up makes the system flawed.

[Charlie Hohn]

I also worry this will discourage people from marking the 'not wild' checkbox, which is important for spatial ecology because otherwise the range maps get real weird and useless.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Whitney Mattila]

Yeah, I always feel bad marking a box, or telling people to do so, especially when they just want to know what something is.

[Christophe Jenny]

I am sorry to be so late in the debate. But I totally agree with Colin's (et al.) point of view in his many posts. I am probably sensitized by the fact that I'm specialized in banana, a vegetatively propagated plant of which almost all specimens, in the sense of iNaturalist, should then be marked as "not wild"... or removed from iNat, if the interest is concentrated only on wild forms ! This incidentally raises another question, on the integration of taxonomies of cultivated forms, in parallel with the Latin botanical taxonomy of natural forms.

Best,

Christophe

[Star Donovan]

Not to oversimplify the issue, but it seems to me that the 2 biggest problems are
(1) the nomenclature (Research vs Casual) suggests a Casual observations are not as valuable.
(2) the default filters set to exclude Casual for observations and searches reinforces the perception that they aren't valued.

Those aren't the only issues, of course; but browsing the group posts, they seem to be the biggest sticking points.

To that end, I propose this as a compromise:
(1) The verifiable filter should be a persistent choice that individual users can toggle on/off in their Account Settings.
(2) "Research Grade" renamed to something like "GBIF suitable"
(3) "Casual" also renamed.
 
Ideally, it might be nice to someday see the "Casual" category split: "Captive", for not wild/naturalized, and "Casual" for other issues (bad data, missing photos/sounds, etc).
That would a major undertaking with it's own issues, however (eg,  updating the banners on all the existing observations, which category is used for obvs that are marked both captive AND have some other data quality issue, how does each designation play into mapping and reporting, etc., etc).

[Jennifer Boeyink]

For whatever it's worth, I agree that 'Captive' should be its own category, whether treated as a split from 'Casual' or as an addition.  

I certainly understand the rationale behind 'downgrading' pets, houseplants, landscape plantings, etc. in this context, but as it is, virtually all plants in cities short of the weeds arguably should be left at 'Casual'.  For the layperson, this creates a skewed view of the 'value' of those observations.

--

[Star Donovan]

That's why I think the semantics and filtering are the immediate concerns, more so than reorg of the grade.

[Colin Meurk]

Thx everyone - as i earlier suggested one of great advantages of showing different categories of wild, naturalized, cultivated/domesticated. etc. on distribution maps (by having different flag/pin types for each category) would be that they would be self-correcting through the crowd. That is, for many records, that are outside of their natural range, they will show up on maps as wrongly attributed. Knowledgeable users will see these and be able to drill down to the record, look at the information, and in many cases decide to give it a 'cultivated' designation and thereby gradually 'correct' the maps.  Many such non-designations are more likely just because the observer forgot or didn't bother to tick that box. easy to do. and there is the deliberate non-ticking too, because of not wanting their record to be downgraded from 'research' value.

[Patrick Alexander]

My $.02:

"Research Grade" as used on iNaturalist does not have any straightforward relationship with the suitability of the observations for research. "Surely only the end user can make [the call as to whether or not an observation is suitable]?" Yes, absolutely. But what does that have to do with the iNaturalist "Research Grade" designation? Not much! Within the context of taxonomy research I've done, my usual MO would be to want to see all observations of a particular genus (or of a particular genus within a geographic area), would be evaluating both the taxonomy itself and the IDs of observations, and would generally not take previous IDs on faith regardless of source. I would want to exclude all captive / cultivated observations but would want both observations with "Research Grade" and "Needs ID" status as far as the ID goes. Someone else may want only the "Research Grade" IDs but not care about captive / cultivated one way or the other; another might only want the captive / cultivated "Needs ID" observations; who knows? I don't think "Research Grade" is a great name, but I think we need to worry about what is accomplished within iNaturalist by this categorization rather than getting hung up on the fact that the "research" in "Research Grade" and the "research" in science happen to be spelled the same. We should treat them as homonyms.

With that in mind, I don't think captive / cultivated observations should be on range maps. At least, I'm interested in where the plants live, not in where they've been abducted to. If there is real interest in that latter issue, maybe that needs some parallel functionality, I don't know... but I'm pretty sure that the "where does this organism occur, exclusive of captive / cultivated observations" functionality is important and needs to be preserved. When I'm on Identify, I have no interest in seeing captive / cultivated observations. That I think is more of a mere personal preference on my part and I don't care too much how that functionality is achieved, although if it were a setting set by the user rather than the default functionality of the Identify page I'd much rather only have to do it once than, e.g., having to set a filter every single time--that would get annoying. If those functionalities I rely on are maintained, I do not have any particular opinion about what subset of observations get the "Research Grade" marker.

[Colin Meurk]

Patrick asks 'what does this have to do with iNaturalist RG designation?"

answer - a lot because of the sociological connotations for the community of users - it's a kick in the guts to be told your observation of say a planted host of some new plant disease or the possible origin of an invader outside its normal range - is worthless as an object of research.

As he says/agrees - only the the end user can make that call.

i just explained (previous post) precisely why cultivated/domesticated records SHOULD be in range maps PROVIDED THEY ARE DESIGNATED AS CULTIVATED ETC - as indeed GBIF requires.  they can't both be of research value and of no research value. it is for the end user to determine.  To summarise my ealier post - this enables crowd sourced refinement of range maps so that it becomes clearer where the natural range is and extended/human-induced range is!  i.e. the 'realised niche' and the 'potential niche' (a legit research distinction).

"When I'm on Identify, I have no interest in seeing captive / cultivated observations. That I think is more of a mere personal preference on my part". Yes it is a personal preference and one that indeed should be catered for - so that the thumbnail records could surely have some icon that indicates this - just like they currently have for whether a comment or ID have been made against it.  The point here is that if maps had different pins/flags for all these different statuses on the distribution maps then surely everyone would be happy :-).  if one is downloading data from the database then one has to apply a whole lot of filters anyway, so no hassle to apply another one that says 'no cultivated records please'.  Right?

i don't think i understand all the points about taxonomy other than that there are personal preferences again as to what records you deem important.

cheers c

[Russell P]

I agree that captive/cultivated should not be downgraded to casual...and that some other indicator should be used (plus unique symbol on map). I'm not fond of the name "research grade" either. It's a flawed descriptor.

[Star Donovan]

Since what "Research Grade" actually describes is GBIF compatibility/eligibility/usage, perhaps it should be called that instead.

[Colin Meurk]

Thx Star – actually ALL records are GBIF compatible, provided their ID is VERIFIABLE (with pictures in iNaturalist; or an expert panel has agreed – as in eBird), and Geolocation, date and observer name are provided. AND provided their status as wild, cultivated/domesticated, etc. is specified, as appropriate. There is misunderstanding about what GBIF accepts. They are fine with ‘cultivated/domesticated’ so long as specified. cheers.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/wBfKwDGUf1U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

---

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

[Colin Meurk]

Ok thx Patrick – so the point is that for those who don’t know the natural/known range, the information will (through crowd sourcing) become more accurate and more transparent – as one will at an instant see the ‘natural range’ and the likely planted/domesticated extensions to that.  It will convey at an instant some interesting/useful information about the species ecology. I can’t see what effort is involved in noting some that records are apparently misrepresented (indeed will make it easier for experts to immediately see).  We are doing this all the time – looking for patterns or disruptions to patterns. And, furthermore, one isn’t being forced to examine these records in detail.  It will only be those with an interest/knowledge of a species who will be in a position to ‘correct’ an unnatural range.  Of course by looking into such a record (as one would have to do) it may become apparent that it is natural/wild and so may extend our knowledge of what the natural range is.  

I cannot see how having 2 or 3 pin types when looking at a species distribution on a map can create clutter.  Let me give an example: in NZ the kauri tree (Agathis australis) has a natural range of the upper third of the north island, but it has been widely planted throughout the rest of the country which (on the map) gives novices a false impression of the natural versus planted distribution.

The other category, (deserving of a distinctive pin type) that I’ve mentioned, is if the tree becomes naturalised from planted southern specimens. This (naturalisation) has happened with a number of north island native plants (and of course exotic invaders) and so interferes with the judgement of an uninformed map viewer looking to see what species they may use in a local restoration project – if there is no discriminating information on the maps.

What I’ve proposed merely refines this information on maps – so it definitely conveys vital information to the ecologist and tree planter.

Cheers

 

From: inatu...@googlegroups.com [mailto:inatu...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2018 1:29 AM
To: iNaturalist <inatu...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [inaturalist] Re: Don't make "organism is not wild" observations casual grade

 

Hello Colin,

It's not clear to me how having observations marked "captive / cultivated" on a map with a separate pin color would help users track down and correct the captive / cultivated observations that aren't marked. You can do that now--you pull up the map and any observations outside the known range are probably either misIDs or failures to mark as captive / cultivated. Having all the observations that are already marked captive / cultivated on there would mean you're looking for a particular pin color outside the native range rather than looking for all pins outside the native range. That's not any easier, it's a more visually challenging task. I can see how having the captive / cultivated observations on there would be useful for some tasks, but in most cases--including this one--I think it would be clutter that doesn't add much useful information. I think having this as an option would add something, but that having it as the default would detract.

Regards,
Patrick

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/wBfKwDGUf1U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Brynna Campbell]

Hi, I realize this has been dead for a week or so, but I wanted to add my two cents as a layman user who only dabbles in the scientific community. I wholeheartedly agree with Colin's assessment - it is a gut punch when something I post gets downgraded to Casual because it's captive or cultivated. Not only does it paint an incomplete picture of the ecosystem of the urban areas I frequent, but it also takes the fun away from snapping pictures of everything I see.

When it isn't as fun, I do it less. I know it's easy to get caught up in the semantics of whether you'd use X in a study or not, but if you want the average user to give you the most observations, you have to include the user's feelings in the equation. If I skip photographing the cultivated lavender plants because I know they'll get downgraded, I might also miss those 23 native bee species frequenting the plants, and the community misses out on having that data. I hope people would keep in mind that many of us are gathering this data for free, so the only motivator here is the enjoyment of discovery.

[bouteloua]

View the attached proposal which:

• unlinks captive/cultivated status from a data quality metric ("verifiable" / "casual")
• allows filtering to find only captive observations that still need ID
• would allow AI to find/train on verified captive obs
• doesn't make captive obs grey and sad
• removes reference to research or science as a quality metric for the data, "verified" being short for something like "community verified," whether or not the community was correct...
• continues showing wild observations by default, but as suggested perhaps the checkboxes could be "sticky" based on ones past usage
• was clumsily scrambled together in MS Paint, sorry :)

cassi

[bouteloua]

oops: "Verified" should have a checkmark next it for the /observations page suggestion

c

[Whitney Mattila]

Looks good to me! Maybe make it clear what wild and captive mean to new people coming in. Like perhaps:

Life Status (needs better term)
[] Wild [] Captive

That way, people understand that they're used for another way of narrowing down what results they can get.

[Charlie Hohn]

I like it! My one other request is for the taxon maps, either don't show captive organisms on the map, make them default off and toggleable, or give them a different symbol. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[tony rebelo]

I fully endorse this.  Very many thanks!!

Might it be possible on the species map page to select wild vs captive (default = both)?

[Scott Loarie]

I'm personally fine with bouteloua's suggestion since the default
still excludes obs of non-established organisms.

Do you guys think this will remedy the sad/mad feelings some folks
currently seem to feel when someone marks their observation as
non-established?

Bouteloua - did you intend to include revisiting the semantics
(Research Grade -> Verified) in this proposal?

If we are revisiting semantics, I'd be in favor of renaming 'captive'
to 'non-established' to make it clearer that escaped pets should fall
into the captive bin unless there's evidence that they've become
established.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "iNaturalist" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--

--------------------------------------------------
Scott R. Loarie, Ph.D.
Co-director, iNaturalist.org
California Academy of Sciences
55 Music Concourse Dr
San Francisco, CA 94118
--------------------------------------------------

[cassi saari]

Non-established might work for waif/human-transported animals/escaped pets, but a tree planted 50 years ago is pretty well-established and possibly reproducing viable offspring, but in our current system that planted tree should still be counted as not wild/captive/cultivated.

Would just "wild" and "not wild" work? "Not wild" being a bit more vague than either captive, cultivated, or non-established and thus open to a few various oddball situations. Or some better alternative?

cassi

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/wBfKwDGUf1U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

[Chris Vynbos]

Another option is to go for some consistency by matching the term in the pink warning exclamation mark: "Introduced"

[Ben Phalan]

I like bouteloua's proposals. I'd change the blue tag from "Verified, Captive" to "Captive" (or whatever better term is decided), as a second tag to be shown in addition to "Needs ID" or "Verified". That would fully de-link these concepts. Alternatively, another way to display it would be to add a blue outline to "Needs ID" or "Verified", with a tooltip to explain it means non-wild, and a definition or link to how that's defined.

"Non-wild" is the alternative that seems to cover most cases mentioned (pets, planted trees, garden plants, zoo animals, farm animals, transported animals, etc) although there might be some philosophical objections (What does "wild" mean? Who gets to define it?). "Non-established" would exclude naturally-occurring vagrants, such as a Snowy Owl south of its usual range, which would be unfortunate.

"Introduced" is a different concept (it refers to the history of a species in a region, not to the status of individual organisms), and I'd be against mixing these up.

Ben

[Charlie Hohn]

I think the word established is too vague and ambiguous for this. As others said an old planted tree is established for instance. 

I think the real meaning is “this individual is in that spot due to deliberate human actions” but how to phrase that more briefly is tricky. It’s easier for plants: “planted” pretty much covers it. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Sent from Gmail Mobile

[bouteloua]

Yeah, and the site and app are already mixing language for this:

-App asks "Is it captive or cultivated?"

-Data Quality Assessment section asks "Organism is wild, yes or no?"

-Observation filters list "Wild" and "Captive"

I would be happy with having a separate label too.

(Though perhaps whoever the new UX designer will be will have a better idea :) )

for https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/7480268

cassi

 

[Chris Cheatle]

I too like Cassi's suggestions. The only change I might suggest is rather than "verified", which is not a 100% accurate assessment is something like "consensus". It can be Research Grade or "Verified" but still be incorrect.

[Patrick Alexander]

There are plenty of introduced plants that wouldn't go in the cultivated / captive bin. I think that's a different concept.

"Non-established" seems odd to me, at least in a plant context. As Cassi indicates, you might reasonably call a cultivated plant that's been there a while "established", using that term in the sense of an individual that doesn't need close attention and care rather than in the sense of a population that has become independent of human cultivation. E.g.: https://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1320033/#b

The current "was it captive / cultivated?" and "organism is wild" wordings work fine for me, but maybe that's just because I'm pretty sure what those are trying to get at. In some contexts there's a distinction between "wild" and "feral" that might trip people up. I'd be inclined to call feral horses in the western U.S. "not wild" while others would probably mark them "wild". I think most people would agree on a distinction between wild cats and feral cats. There's nothing all that different about the biological situation between feral cats and feral horses but the politics are different. I'm not sure if that's a big deal and I'm not sure if there's a better term. There are going to be gray areas no matter what. Things like seeding of native plants are going to be hard to nail down regardless of the terms; if I know it was a seeding project I'll click "not wild", but I've made a few observations that I've left as "wild" even though I have a strong suspicion that the plants came from seeding projects decades back. I think going with "wild" and "not wild" across the board would increase internal consistency without making the semantics any worse...

[Star Donovan]

I like the idea of a tool tip to explain captive/wild to new users.  

Tool tips as flyouts must generally be short, though, and this discussion and many  other   threads  demonstrate, there is a lot more nuance to this category than the binary toggle might suggest.

Maybe the tool tip, under whatever "short and sweet" description, should also have a link to the anchor on captive on the help page/journal entry?

Something like:

Not-Wild= domesticated, captivated, planted or otherwise-cultivated or cared for by humans

Wild = feral, existing without direct human aid/care/stewardship
For more info, see www.inaturalist.org/pages/help#captive 

This is assuming a tool tip is presented as a flyout/hover text, and not some other format. 

[Robert Taylor]

Hi Cassi,

Thank you, I think your suggestion would be a big improvement. 

I am concerned however that we might be confusing several things which could be kept simple by separating the issues. My suggestion would be as follows.

1) only have Casual, Needs ID and Verified as a grading system.

2) add annotations for (a) native versus introduced (and possible naturalized) and (b) wild versus not wild

Default maps should include all data and allow the option to remove alien or not wild observations. I imagine that most scientific studies start by looking at all the data before removing outliers?

Please can ALL the data go onto GBIF - even if the observation has only 1 ID, or if it only has a family level ID, or if it is introduced, or if it is not wild! The data should be available for the end user - and not just a selection of things which are easy to ID. 

[Charlie Hohn]

You can track what is native vs introduced in the places section already. I think that makes a lot more sense than an Annotation. Otherwise the field will often not be filled out or done inconsistently. Instead I think we should focus on keeping those places current.

In terms of the mapping, it's very rare for any ecological studies to include planted plants, for instance. Especially if you start to include houseplants and such. The maps are very valuable in tracking the native range (or introduced range for invasives) of a species and adding the captive/cultivated observations too will create a huge pain and basically make those maps useless. So i think it's essential that they either default to off or else have different looking symbols so they can be visually filtered out. 

I don't think it's a good idea at all to send unverified data to GBIF and while i can't speak for them directly, i don't think they want that data either.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[Patrick Alexander]

On this topic: "Default maps should include all data and allow the option to remove alien or not wild observations. I imagine that most scientific studies start by looking at all the data before removing outliers?"

I think it might be reasonable to have a "just stick it all on there" map option (which, by the way, we do in a roundabout way--you can get there through Explore), but I don't think that should be the default and personally I would very rarely want to use it. Having to filter out the "not wilds" every time on the taxon maps would just make those taxon maps obnoxious and unhelpful.

Regarding scientific studies--If you were doing research on oaks, would you want to include all the bird observations and then remove those later? Well, no, you'd just start with the oak observations that are relevant to your work. There's no reason to pull in a lot of irrelevant data and then spend your time weeding out the irrelevant data. For research I've been involved in, "not wild" observations would be irrelevant and the same reasoning would apply.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/wBfKwDGUf1U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

[Colin Meurk]

I cannot believe how this discussion keeps going round and round in circles.  I wish people wouldn’t keep second-guessing what is important or not important to one researcher or another or to someone with a general interest. elsewhere I have pointed out the totally legitimate science value of seeing ‘realised’ versus ‘potential’ niches and identifying invasion/incursion fronts. The most basic simple fact of the universe is ‘existence’ or ‘presence’.  So the default should be nothing more nor less than that – ‘presence’. Then one filters down to different qualities of presence:

·         natural-indigenous/wild-spontaneous;

·         non-local/non-indigenous/self-established/spontaneous/invasive;

·         planted-cultivated-domesticated-captive.

 

The solution has already been clearly provided in this discussion – namely that these 3 (or more if I’ve missed something) categories be differentiated on range maps by distinctive flags/symbols. If people really want toggles as well that switch off layers then fine, but provided the 3 categories can be clearly seen then there is no confusion as to what is the natural range and what is the anthropogenic or invasive range. This has the added advantage (because not everyone remembers or knows to demarcate their records correctly) of knowledgeable people being able to spot species/records that appear to be out of range. Those records can be interrogated and the appropriate corrected annotation given to that record which will iteratively refine the distribution knowledge – and potentially identify new legitimate extensions to ranges. The potential sources of new invasives and the ecological interactions/hostings that planted/captive specimens may provide is also vitally important in terms of conservation management. So the overall happiness quotient correspondingly increases across iNaturalist-land J. The example of mixing birds and oak trees is surely an unhappy straw man.

 

There has been general consensus about the above basic parameters and formats (and also about nomenclature/semantics regarding research grade – it is not about ‘irrational anger’ about downgraded status of someone’s records; but about logical descriptive terminology that doesn’t second-guess value) so hopefully we can move on with this and do it.

Cheers c

 

From: inatu...@googlegroups.com [mailto:inatu...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Alexander
Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2018 1:40 a.m.
To: inatu...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [inaturalist] Re: Don't make "organism is not wild" observations casual grade

 

On this topic: "Default maps should include all data and allow the option to remove alien or not wild observations. I imagine that most scientific studies start by looking at all the data before removing outliers?"

I think it might be reasonable to have a "just stick it all on there" map option (which, by the way, we do in a roundabout way--you can get there through Explore), but I don't think that should be the default and personally I would very rarely want to use it. Having to filter out the "not wilds" every time on the taxon maps would just make those taxon maps obnoxious and unhelpful.

Regarding scientific studies--If you were doing research on oaks, would you want to include all the bird observations and then remove those later? Well, no, you'd just start with the oak observations that are relevant to your work. There's no reason to pull in a lot of irrelevant data and then spend your time weeding out the irrelevant data. For research I've been involved in, "not wild" observations would be irrelevant and the same reasoning would apply.

On 7/31/18, 7:03 AM, Robert Taylor wrote:

Hi Cassi,

 

Thank you, I think your suggestion would be a big improvement. 

 

I am concerned however that we might be confusing several things which could be kept simple by separating the issues. My suggestion would be as follows.

 

1) only have Casual, Needs ID and Verified as a grading system.

 

2) add annotations for (a) native versus introduced (and possible naturalized) and (b) wild versus not wild

 

Default maps should include all data and allow the option to remove alien or not wild observations. I imagine that most scientific studies start by looking at all the data before removing outliers?

 

Please can ALL the data go onto GBIF - even if the observation has only 1 ID, or if it only has a family level ID, or if it is introduced, or if it is not wild! The data should be available for the end user - and not just a selection of things which are easy to ID. 

 

On Sunday, 29 July 2018 23:22:44 UTC+2, bouteloua wrote:

Yeah, and the site and app are already mixing language for this:

-App asks "Is it captive or cultivated?"

-Data Quality Assessment section asks "Organism is wild, yes or no?"

-Observation filters list "Wild" and "Captive"

 

I would be happy with having a separate label too.

(Though perhaps whoever the new UX designer will be will have a better idea :) )

 

for https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/7480268

 

cassi

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/wBfKwDGUf1U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/wBfKwDGUf1U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Patrick Alexander]

Hello Colin,

My mention of oaks & birds was an example of obviously irrelevant data, in response to a suggestion that researchers start by looking at all the data. Well, no, irrelevant data is irrelevant data, and for some purposes the cultivated / wild axis is just as important as the taxonomic axis in identifying what data is or is not relevant. Whatever it is you want to see on a map or include in a research project, sticking other stuff in there isn't going to be helpful. That's what I was trying to get at and I don't think it's an "unhappy straw man".

There are a lot of ways in iNaturalist to pull out whatever data is relevant to a particular purpose. When you point out that captive/cultivated observations are useful for various kinds of research or conservation, I don't think there's disagreement on that. It doesn't follow that the taxon maps should show all the captive/cultivated observations, though. The core purpose of the taxon maps is to provide the same kind of functionality as the distribution maps in floras, field guides, and the like, plus the ability to pull up particular observations. I think that functionality is important and should remain easily accessible without additional fiddling or filtering. It's clearly not the only useful mapping functionality that could be on iNaturalist, nor is it the only kind of mapping functionality currently available on iNaturalist. I think your preferred color-coded mapping functionality would be a useful addition, but I don't think it would replace the current taxon map functionality. It isn't "the solution". It's a solution that would be better for some purposes and worse for others. It'd be worse for my use. Maybe it would make sense to just keep the current taxon map as the default, with a button to click to switch to a color-coded map? If so, distinguishing native and introduced populations would probably require more discussion. Cultivated vs. not is a distinction that's usually easy to make at the observation level (with some gray areas and special cases, many of them already mentioned in this thread), native vs. introduced is more difficult and I'm not sure it's handled that well in iNaturalist at present.

Regards,
Patrick

[Charlie Hohn]

something that would meet with both of your needs would be different symbology for captive/cultivated but the ability to turn it off and a 'sticky' toggle that remembers which you prefer

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[cassi saari]

Since "iNaturalist is primarily about observing wild organisms", I would disagree that the default settings throughout the site should include

the display of

non-wild observations such as pets, zoo animals, botanic gardens, and house plants. Although again, the settings, including the maps, should always include the ability to view all data for people with differing preferences

and research goals

. If I logged

i

n for the first time to help other local naturalists identify wildlife and I was presented with a bunch of pets and zoo animals I would be a lot less likely to return. 

By the way if anyone is interested in easily checking/documenting range expansions on iNat I would recommend the atlases feature.

cassi

[Patrick Alexander]

Agreed. I like the idea of "sticky" options. I don't like the idea of having to click around to get the right thing on a regular basis. Maybe there should be a sticky option somewhere to make all options sticky. :-)

[Chris Vynbos]

I agree with Charlie about the sticky option, but I also agree with bouteloula that the default should hide non-wild because people use the distribution map for ID decisions, and if ranges included the non-wild by default we'd get lots of wrong IDs. 

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/wBfKwDGUf1U/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inat...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

---

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/wBfKwDGUf1U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Colin Meurk]

Not if the categories are differentiated. And if they are mistaken or not annotated properly in first place then it will cause confusion anyway. AND the experts will iteratively correct them and make the distributions even more meaningful.  Charlie has the answer – just have the different categories clearly demarcated

c  

for https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/7480268

 

cassi

 

 

[Tony Iwane]

Just an update that this is something we are looking into, as Scott mentioned above. Thank you for sharing all of your opinions and ideas, everyone. 

Tony Iwane

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tait Sougstad]

I'm with this guy. And his responses below. We shouldn't discount the repercussions of what we call it, regardless of how the data can be used. iNat should have a high priority of gaining and keeping users, and it should be perfectly acceptable to take a picture of a pet or house plant to test the program, and the data has value. I agree that we should cut language that denotes value and simple provide options to categorize in ways that are useful. The Wild Bergamot cultivated in the shopping mall parking lot is just as valuable to the one found in the mountains.

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:59:52 PM UTC-6, Colin Meurk wrote:

as everyone who has followed this debate knows, i'm totally with Robert, Sam and Whitney on this :-).

I've been threatening a 17 point refutation of the current approach - oh well, here is the 8 point version (some of which harks back to earlier correspondents) :-) ...

1. Research Grade should mean only that the name is authentic – at any taxonomic level (as per Donald Hobern, Tony Rebelo, Jon Sullivan) – that it has been verified by a second opinion (not counting AI). We shouldn’t second guess what is of scientific merit (see 8).To treat C/D somehow as of no research merit, and pandering only to ‘real science’ (Durey) is purely an expression of a personal preference of what constitutes scientific interest.

2. To treat C/D somehow as of no research merit, and pandering only to ‘real science’ (Durey) is purely an expression of a personal preference of what constitutes scientific interest.

3. One might argue that even zoo animals interact with ‘natural’ and social environments, altho this category seems most frowned upon – even tho as Carrie has said, it is often the entrée to going wild with iNaturalist. All have valid research potential – ecologically, taxonomically, biogeographically, sociologically, culturally, biosecurity-wise, disease host availability, etc. (notwithstanding Lincoln Durey).

4. Mapping (and map ranges) – yes of course we want to distinguish natural/wild distributions from planted/cultivated/domesticated distributions from self-established individuals beyond their known natural range. The second would include both exotic and indigenous cultivated specimens and the latter would include invasive exotic spp as well as regenerating indigenous species outside their natural range. Indigenous and exotic are identified in the symbol associated with the taxon at top of each record page.

5. The simplest solution would be to use distinctive point symbols for each of these classes - as we currently do for colour representing taxonomic groups and flags or blobs representing precise versus obscured locations. E.g. a solid colour for naturally occurring records in their natural range; an empty flag with a coloured border would designate planted/domesticated, and an empty flag with a coloured dot in the middle would represent naturalised records. A cross could be inserted over the symbol if the species is exotic to the country. The important value of this would be that one could immediately see where species seemed to be wrongly assigned in parts of their range, and drill down to those records and, based on the associated information, correct the designation as appropriate. This will achieve crowd-refinement of distribution.

6. In summary – the declaration that non-wild records are deemed inferior to ecological science and knowledge at lay or scientific level is totally arbitrary – as outlined above. It is worse than that because it is demotivating to novices, many of whom are recording garden or urban records as an entrée to becoming more observant in the great outdoors. It will appear to them that their records are inferior, whereas there is no rational basis for this. Invasive exotics are undesirable but that is a different matter to scientific value. We are surely trying to engage more people in observing the world and recording it. Indeed there is a very real scientific reason for wanting to see both natural and naturalised distributions clearly distinguished as suggested above – and that is to define ‘actual/potential’ versus ‘realised’ niches a totally legit science question. It should be available every time I look at a map; not have to go into some additional data search and retrieval algorithm. Furthermore, there is a danger that people will obfuscate the true status of a record if they perceive it will be downgraded. Finally, international opinion does not support this distinction – GBIF is perfectly happy to receive cultivated records with the understanding that they are properly designated.

7. Thus the only criteria for RG should be that there is a crowd-agreed name (including generic or family level) and that there is the minimum metadata of time, place and observer.

8. Can we do this please?

cheers colin 

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 10:10:42 AM UTC+12, Riviera S wrote:

There's a bit of misunderstanding here so I hope I can answer it.

First off, in iNat's sense the "not wild" check really means "not naturalized". "Not naturalized" indicates that it is a one-off, or occasional record, that was heavily influenced by humans. A plant or tree that was placed by hand is "not naturalized", until there is evidence that it is seeding and producing further trees. Animals that have escaped (livestock, pet birds, rabbits) are "not naturalized", until they create colonies and perpetuate the species there. "Not naturalized" records are just that -- something that is not spreading, or posing a current impact on a medium or large scale.

Secondly, research grade is not always a formal label. Research grade is a basic clear-cut system for sorting wild from non-wild observations (zoos, gardens). Just because important records don't get research grade doesn't mean we think they are not useful. Research grade only submits the record to GBIF (a database of WILD organisms). Research grade is not the ultimate indication that something is useful for research, the same way "Casual" is not an indication that the record is useless.

In response to Robert's examples directly:

1. This is a planted tree so it is "not naturalized", AKA "not wild".

2. London planes are almost always sterile -- so this is best marked as "not naturalized" in all cases. But here, it seems clear it was planted purposefully in a row. So I would say this is a guarantee.

3. The cow is not feral. It is "not naturalized", AKA "not wild".

In all 3 cases, the "not wild" tag is completely deserved. I'm sorry that the lack of research grade disappoints you Robert, but please don't be discouraged. Your sightings, even marked as "not wild", are still available in searches, and on the website, for others to view. Research grade is primarily for off-site use.

[Tait Sougstad]

I still agree with this. The philosophical discussion on what is "wild" is worth having.

Do identification books codify range and establish what is wild versus invasive? How many of the plants we consider native to a region are only there because indigenous people intentionally or unintentionally spread it? Does writing about something establish when it becomes a "weed"?

Cultivation and naturalization have tons of ethnobotanical significance, and I think we would want people to take pictures of every plant in their garden, every weed in their lawn, every tree in their neighborhood, and every insect that uses them for habitat. If researchers want to hone in on particular categories, generate those categories to the level of specificity desired and let the community use it or not.

I think we all have an interest in ensuring iNat does not become the land of cat pictures, but we don't do that by prohibiting or denigrating cat pictures, but by being involved naturalists who post the things we are interested in and encourage the exploration of our world.

Tait

[Lindsey Duval]

Just FYI as a general thing, I like all this discussion about this but there are definitely errors out there or people who refuse to fix their mistakes. I know for a fact that I have something out there that got marked "Casual" but I don't recall what it is, and unfortunately, there is no way for a user to search their own records to easily find the Casuals. I love taking photos of non-native/invasive plant species so that they can be added to the map, and had somebody come by an assume one of these had to be in a garden. In person I try very hard to avoid blatantly planted ornamentals and similar and I won't even go near gardens unless I'm only photographing insects/arachnids. For me it wasn't even a gut punch, I was just amazed that whomever did it didn't even take the time to ask me anything about it. I have had so many good/valuable discussions on iNat that when people don't want to be bothered, then I am annoyed. 

[paloma]

Responding to “unfortunately, there is no way for a user to search their own records to easily find the Casuals,” it is possible by going to “Explore,” unchecking “verifiable” and checking “captive” under “filters,” and typing in your username under “more filters.”

[Susan Hewitt]

If a plant is a garden escape, it is worth saying so in the description.

[Tony Iwane]

Responding to Lindsey's post:

I'm not sure if this relates to the situation you described, but if someone votes your observation as not wild, you can also add your vote on the observation's Data Quality Assessment:

And that should cancel out their vote. You might have known this already but wanted to make sure.

Tony Iwane

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Lindsey Duval <lindse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just FYI as a general thing, I like all this discussion about this but there are definitely errors out there or people who refuse to fix their mistakes. I know for a fact that I have something out there that got marked "Casual" but I don't recall what it is, and unfortunately, there is no way for a user to search their own records to easily find the Casuals. I love taking photos of non-native/invasive plant species so that they can be added to the map, and had somebody come by an assume one of these had to be in a garden. In person I try very hard to avoid blatantly planted ornamentals and similar and I won't even go near gardens unless I'm only photographing insects/arachnids. For me it wasn't even a gut punch, I was just amazed that whomever did it didn't even take the time to ask me anything about it. I have had so many good/valuable discussions on iNat that when people don't want to be bothered, then I am annoyed. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/wBfKwDGUf1U/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Tony Iwane]

I would disagree that a moth being attracted to a moth light falls under the iNat definition of "captive/cultivated." The moth certainly intends to be at the light, no human forced it to be there. It's a pretty different situation than a zoo animal, pet, or cultivated plant. This is simply a way to sample and find the wild animals living in an area. 

Tony Iwane

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:51 AM, ellen hildebrandt <hild...@gmail.com> wrote:

I've just had a fantastic example occur:  https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/15319063

This is a moth that an IDer judged to be "not wild" because it had come to UV light. And by the Help page definition, he is technically correct. But by extension, the vast majority of moth observations here will be casual observations.

[Margaret Carreiro]

I agree with Colin Meurk and many others who have posted fine suggestions on this topic for modifying iNaturalist tagging of species.  I agree that separate designations are important for wild organisms vs those that are cultivated or caged since those datasets will be used by different researchers.   There is concern that distributions of organisms in the wild should not be confused with the same species in cultivation and I understand the reasons for this.  But I want to point out that as an urban ecologists I would want to search for tags for plants that ARE under cultivation and would be using them for research purposes.  So to the extent that "casual" grading discourages consensus verification of identity of species, I think that cultivated and caged species need to have separate designations of their own that can attain a research level grade.   That would make those organisms available for research databases of a different kind.    Best, Margaret 

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:27:50 AM UTC-4, Robert Taylor wrote:

I get very frustrated when one of my observations gets devalued to being casual grade and unworthy of research. Surely only the end user can make this call, and even then it would only be unworthy of HIS or HER research. When someone  ticks the thumbs-down under "Organism is wild" I disagree that the observation should become casual. I am not posting images of my pets - I am posting images of research significance. As casual grade my observations don't receive much attention, if any!

I will provide three examples from my observations: 

1) https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/13730775 - I am compiling a list of alien plants in Maun (my home town) and this is crucially important as these plants are having a HUGE impact on the Okavango Dela, a world heritage site. In this case I noted that this Duranta erecta was growing in the town. I am not trying to hoodwink anyone that it was growing feral - I have listed it as growing in a garden under habitat! However this species is an invasive species prohibited by law in South Africa. It is very much of research importance that I have noted the presence of this invasive species in Maun!

2) https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/10966792 - I don't disagree that these trees were planted within this game reserve (another world heritage site). However this is important in more than one way. There is a bug that lives on London Plane tree and where these trees are it creates habitat for that bug - (so potential habitat for a non-native bug). These trees have been growing and thriving here for many many years unattended (so when does it become wild?) All white rhinos throughout Africa outside of Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Park have been "planted" as part of a reintroduction program, arguably having been attended to in bomas for a larger proportion of their lives than these trees have been attended to as seedlings - do we go ahead and tick that rhino are not wild?

Which brings me to 3) https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/13287300 - a cow which has been herded into a wildlife reservation and world heritage site - living side by side with the rhino which were also herded into the same reserve. The only difference is that the the cow is illegal and the rhino was a government sanctioned import from South Africa and Zimbabwe (Rhino were extinct in Botswana until 2001). The large numbers of cows are a huge ecological threat and should be of Research Grade. We know where the rhino are - as we put them there - and these could be made casual grade -  no one want your observation of a rhino on iNat (not researchers, not lodge owners and most importantly not anti-poaching! - but I don't go around sticking my nose into other peoples business and down-grading their rhino observations).

[Charlie Hohn]

Probably too complex but ideally plants rooted in the ground would be treated differently than houseplants or indoor or fenced in pets/zoo animals. The former are rooted and need to be able to survive in that spot for at least a little while, and other organisms such as insects interact with them in important ways. Whereas the latter can be literally be anywhere that humans can build a habitable structure. In my mind the former (and maybe an animal equivalent would be rangeland animals like free ranging cows) are worth collecting data on while the latter truly are pretty useless for biodiversity research. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Whitney Mattila]

While pointing this thread to Margaret Carreiro (hey! :)), I realized another advantage to allowing a research grade for culivated/non-wild items: simply, it means that, when I go through to see if something needs to be IDed in the app, I can tell right away if something's reached consensus.

I realize Charlie is mostly brainstorming aloud, but I have a few points in that regard. :)

I think it's hard to guess what sorts of results would be useful for research. There's also the fact that many people get introduced to the app simply because they're trying to ID a plant. Sometimes, that's all it takes for this place to get its hooks on a person.

[Charlie Hohn]

Right, I should word it differently in that I don’t see any use for it for ecology research. But things with no real link to the ecosystem aren’t really ecology data unless you are looking at a super broad sense. There are other reasons the data on things like what houseplants people prefer that may be valuable. But it seems outside the scope of inat. 

I’m not saying ban it either. Just keep it off the maps and default id page and such. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Whitney Mattila]

It's okay! You have a point, and I didn't think you were arguing for anything like banning such observations at all.

I definitely agree that whatever system that gets put in place allows for people to narrow down their results.

[Lincoln Durey]

I just want the range maps to be real and useful, like Charlie.  I go a lot of very wild places, and I'm often looking at some rather small hard to distinguish plants.

it is immensely helpful to be able to look at the iNat range map, and the range map in my field guide, and see that they correlate, and then to see that the key characters that the field guide (or eflora) mentions are also in our iNat samples.  Then I can (try) to make sure my observation photos show those keys, and I can be very happy with the ID's that I make and others second.

If I take in-artful photos, sometimes the experts can make an ID based on eliminating things not-in-range, just one more reason we need good maps.

If we dilute the range maps with planted things (I mark "not-wild" at least 100 potted or landscaped plants every day), then we'll never know where things are supposed to be.

As has been mentioned many many times, I'm not making your observation any "less", I'm just telling it true, it is planted.  it can still be queried by any researcher who cares.

[Colin Meurk]

It is very frustrating when people join these conversations without having read the whole discourse and start the whole thing again from square one.

Diluting range maps has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is about revealing maximum information. Also, it is about having rational rules for what constitutes legitimate scientific value (research grade) and not second guessing what this might be for a wider audience than yourself.  Planted and naturalised (potential) ranges absolutely have scientific merit PROVIDED THESE ARE DISTINGUISHED CLEARLY IN DATA VISUALISATION from wild/natural ranges (realised niche).  So, the answer is very simple (and has been stated now numerous, tedious times) – We need a mapping function that shows natural range in one clear set of symbols (say solid coloured flag) and ‘cultivated’ range as say open flags, and perhaps putative naturalised plants/animals outside their putative natural range with cross-hatching (or something). This should be the default.  If the untidiness of seeing the 2 or 3 types of symbol together on the same map (which yields the most unambiguous information and incidentally alerts one to potentially incorrect but correctible information) does your head in, then provide a toggle especially for them to turn off the offensive layer(s). I hope you are still smiling with me J.

 

 

From: inatu...@googlegroups.com [mailto:inatu...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lincoln Durey
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2018 10:18 a.m.
To: iNaturalist
Subject: Re: [inaturalist] Re: Don't make "organism is not wild" observations casual grade

 

I just want the range maps to be real and useful, like Charlie.  I go a lot of very wild places, and I'm often looking at some rather small hard to distinguish plants.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/wBfKwDGUf1U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Patrick Alexander]

On 9/5/18, 4:47 PM, Colin Meurk wrote:

Diluting range maps hasabsolutely nothing to do with it. It is about revealing maximum information.

Hello Colin,

I don't think we all agree with your interpretation on that point. Information that isn't relevant to what someone wants to do is, indeed, "dilution". Or "noise".

Part of the issue here is: What's the purpose of iNaturalist and what do most users want to get out of the maps? My best guess at answers to those questions are: The purpose of iNaturalist is recording wild biodiversity and most users want maps of where wild organisms occur. If I am correct in that, "maximum information" isn't the right approach and your concept of "maximum information" is indeed the same thing as "diluting range maps". However, I could be wrong, and I think those questions are worth discussing further. I think you have your own fixed idea of what the purpose of iNaturalist should be, what most users should want to get out of maps, and that you have acted as though disagreement either does not exist or is simply a matter of people not having read your statements about what you think should be the case--as though, if we had read and understood what you wrote, we would have no choice but to agree. Well, no, some of us understand and disagree.

Regards,
Patrick

[Colin Meurk]

Thx Patrick – my perception is that we go thru these cycles - the majority have agreed with me (check the log; not that it should only be about populism – look where that is getting us J), then it lapses, nothing happens, then it resurfaces and the same old arguments start up again.  so first I don’t think I’m a lone voice, nor that most people are not interested to know the entire scope of a species’ ecology.  Second, it is not dilution or noise if, as we have proposed, the different categories are clearly/symbolically differentiated. In fact at present, species maps are not even achieving what the ‘wilder’ people want, because if you go to a basic species range maps don’t differentiate these categories now. E.g. https://inaturalist.nz/taxa/121718-Agathis-australis - is the range map for this southern conifer.  It’s natural range is restricted to the upper third of the NZ North Island but as one can see (and accentuated by the GBIF overlay) there are multiple undifferentiated records from southern North Island, South Island and even Stewart Island (all certainly and known to be planted).  How great it would be if you could clearly see the line of wild from cultivated that highlights that boundary (and also avoid affecting the extrapolated natural range map based on all records). I would incidentally then have a motivation if I saw a ‘wild’ symbol down south, to go to that record and reassign it to ‘cultivated’ and thereby iteratively refine these boundaries.

What is non-sensical (note to self - delete and replace with ‘counter-productive’) is to restrict the notion of ‘research grade’ to just one particular research purpose that particular people personally like to pursue.  So contrary to the notion of trying to ram one idea down everyone’s throat I’m actually trying to get recognition of the universal interest in the records and data, but in a way that everyone can use their own lens, join hands and be rapturously happy.

Absolutely, what is the meaning and purpose of iNaturalist, the universe and everything?  We could debate this for a while. I would suggest that the ‘wild’ purpose has been adopted from the outset (which is fair enough that the wonderful creators of this amazing facility should have influenced the direction and focus) rather than what ‘everyone wants’. And as I implied, I’d be wary of a simple vote because of the dangers of populist outcomes, and the way such a question is presented will certainly affect the outcome. Don’t get me wrong, I love the wild and I want more of it, BUT it is now recognised that almost the entire planet is a ‘recombinant ecosystem’, and as more species become extinct, as is sadly projected, sometimes the only hope for many species will be in contrived situations – from which of course we hope spontaneous populations will be resurrected.

Yes, yes – if only you all understood my immaculate logic and could see the world as it really is (with NZ at the top of the map rather than the bottom) you would all agree …  I get that J.  Let the debate continue

Cheers from down under – or should that be up over!?

 

From: inatu...@googlegroups.com [mailto:inatu...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Alexander
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2018 1:53 p.m.
To: inatu...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [inaturalist] Re: Don't make "organism is not wild" observations casual grade

 

On 9/5/18, 4:47 PM, Colin Meurk wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/wBfKwDGUf1U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Patrick Alexander]

On 9/5/18, 9:07 PM, Colin Meurk wrote:

Second, it is not dilution or noise if, as we have proposed, the different categories are clearly/symbolically differentiated.

Hello Colin,

Imagine you want a map of Agathis australis, you get a map instead that shows Agathis australis in red and Leptospermum scoparium in green. They are clearly differentiated, but it's still clutter and it's still noise because there's information you didn't want along with the information you did want. It's dilution / noise whenever a map shows you what you want to see + what you didn't want to see vs. just what you want to see, regardless of what kind of "what you didn't want to see" is involved and regardless of whether the two items have different map symbology.

In fact at present, species maps are not even achieving what the ‘wilder’ people want, because if you go to a basic species range maps don’t differentiate these categories now.

I agree, but that's a data accuracy issue rather than a representation issue. The categories are differentiated in the maps ("visible" vs. "not visible" in the default, but you can change this if you wish--within limits), but they are inaccurately labelled in the observations. So, suppose we just color-code "wild" Agathis australis vs. "cultivated" Agathis australis with the existing data. That doesn't change anything about the error rates in those labels! It doesn't meet the needs of the "wilder" people better, it has the same limitations it did before + more noise (observations we aren't interested in).

I do think it would be handy to be able to easily show the wild + cultivated observations of a taxon with different symbols. We can kind of do that now, but not well. You can't see both at once--you've got to click the "wild" filter and then the "captive" filter to switch between the two. I just disagree that this is the inherently correct display for all users. It would be helpful for some people all the time, some people some of the time, some people none of the time.

What is non-sensical (note to self - delete and replace with ‘counter-productive’) is to restrict the notion of ‘research grade’ to just one particular research purpose that particular people personally like to pursue.

I'm in agreement there. I think "research grade" as it is currently implemented does not mark out the records that are suitable for research. I think you're more interested in the utility of cultivated observations for research and I'm more interested in the role of accurate ID in determining whether observations are suitable for research (a misIDed observation may still be useful; an observation with one correct ID and no corroborating IDs may still be useful), but we agree that "research grade" doesn't mark out the observations suitable for the various potential research projects that might use iNaturalist observations.

I think the biggest problem with increasing the visibility of cultivated observations, at least for users like me who aren't interested in them, is that it would risk shifting iNaturalist from a wild biodiversity platform towards a "look what's in my garden" platform. People already have a strong bias towards observing cultivated plants and wild plants only near their homes. E.g., the highest density of "wild" observations of Agathis australis is near Auckland and the highest density of "cultivated" observations of Agathis australis is near Auckland; people don't really get out much, when you come down to it. There are lots of gardening sites on the web, not very many "what do you see when you actually do get out" sites, so I want to preserve the existence and useful-to-me information content of the latter. I don't, for instance, want to have my Identify page flooded with more Lantana people put in their yards or Philodendron they have in their homes. There's already too much of that, and if the ratio increased too much the Identify page would simply cease to have utility for me. People like me need to be able to filter all that out as much as possible in order for iNaturalist to remain a productive place for us to engage.

Regards,
Patrick

[Charlie Hohn]

i think at this point the community has found a semi-consensus. My impression is this: Most people don't want cultivated observations on maps, but most people also wish they could get research grade with those observations. Most people recognize there is a range in 'captive' observations which range from useless for almost any research perspective (pictures of your dog which you could take anywhere) to very useful and important (photos of a very invasive plant in landscaping next to natural habitat it could invade).But there's no easy way to parse that out for now.

To me it also ties back to a broader discussion of iNat where there's this balance between making it usable for 'anyone' and really simple to use and understand versus being the most powerful, useful, and versatile scientific tool for studying biodiversity since, maybe ever? I think overall the devs strike a good balance but sometimes they go too far towards the former in my opinion (of course others would disagree, that's the point). To me having much more advanced map symbology would be amazing. have obscured observations keep their differentsymbol when moved out a few more frames, have different symbols for captive versus casual grade versus needs ID, symbology to be able to filter out low-mapping-precision observations at a glance, and easier access to heatmap type maps as you zoom out, etc etc, My guess is the admins may not want to 'clutter' the map with more symbology which isn't where is tand on this, but the maps are pretty great as they are still, so it is what it is.

In terms of just having the little flag that says something is research grade versus not, apparently it bothers lots of people to have their captive/cultivated observations as 'casual'. I don't really understand this, but recognize it is that way. So it would be nice to change the wording for those somehow.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Whitney Mattila]

Yeah, for me, as I'm commented on a few times, the problem with the casual grade is that it becomes a pool of photos that are hard to tell what's been confirmed, what hasn't, etc.

Due to this, when I decided to go on the website to ID things, I found I couldn't have the search show me list of casual and 'needs ID' observations at the same time. The app allows for this, so it's easier to do things on there for now. :)

[Julien Renoult]

Hi all, 

While reading the initial post and different answers (sorry I did not read all), I am getting increasingly confused about what the main goal of iNaturalist is.

I understand that a cow herded in a wildlife reservation or a planted tree are ecologically important, by shaping the habitats or by creating entire biotopes for wild organisms. But so is the pile of rotting banana skins in my compost, which contributes to maintain a healthy population of Drosophila flies in my house. Do you really want to see pictures of my banana skins?  

Similarly, some poeple wrote that they knew their posted observations displayed planted specimen, but that they wanted an ID. Are we sure we want iNaturalit to be a forum for identifying gardened and indoor plants, pets, or the ingredients of a mixed salad? 

I do not think that a single website can alone embrasse all the goals of citizen science and knowledge sharing. I really enjoyed the initial spirit of iNat as a numeric museum in which one data is one verifiable, geotagged and timestamped specimen. If we scatt too much, there is a significant risk that iNat loose its attractiveness to scientists and kin naturalist, who are also very important for the website.  

Personally, I am spending a susbtantial amount of time tracking and marking observations of "not wild" specimens to downgrade them (in default of deleting them) as a contribution to clean the database.

Julien

[Tait Sougstad]

I don't think we need to choose. It is simple enough to set up the interface to so that horticulturists could filter out wild organisms and naturalists to filter out cultivated so that it can serve both. I really like Colin's ideas of using filters and different map symbols so that people can customize their experience and the different categories are conspicuous.

I mainly use iNat the way you are describing. I keep tabs on the observations popping up in my region and rely heavily on range to limit my options, so I have to smile and shrug when someone posts a cultivated species. However, I'm just as curious about those cultivated species, and don't want to know everything about the "wild" plants out in the woods, but nothing about the things planted in the city. I've started posting observations of cultivated city plants as a part of my discipline and documentation of investigating everything I come across, and check the "captive/cultivated" box. I want to identify any species, regardless of the cultural assignment we put on it, and try to analyze and synthesize what I think it significant about it.

This is a big community, and I think we can have the tools to accommodate many different uses.

Tait

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/wBfKwDGUf1U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

[Charlie Hohn]

A while back I was in LA but mostly confined to the suburbs, and I was sad about this, but I managed to find like 100 cultivated plants I never see in Vermont and had never put into iNat before. I like getting them on my life list because it's easy to filer them out if I want a 'wild-only life list'. Why not? The main issue is just people not marking them as cultivated. I often seen cultivated stuff when doing ID help but I don't know why it annoys people to mark them. I get the same satisfaction doing that as I do with other ID help. Maybe the site and profiles just need to track how many of those people do so we feel like we are getting credit. I know the info exists because once time several years ago Ken-Ichi pulled it up. I think i was in the top 2 or 3 people marking as captive, maybe the #1, but maybe i've since been passed.

I have a friend who was once doing a study of which plants were planted in a poor Latina/Latino community in Los Angeles and IIRC found that pretty much all of the plants used there by people were different than what were planted in the upper middle class white suburbs. This sort of data IS valuable. It's just different. It doesn't belong on the same range maps as wild species, unless denoted with a different symbol. But I don't see any reason why it doesn't belong on iNat. In fact the more i think about it the more i think allowing them to get research grade, but also making it easy to filter for them when doing ID, is the best answer here.  We can just not share them with data aggregators who don't want them.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Christophe Jenny]

My main plant of interest is banana. There are of course wild banana with sexual reproduction. But the vast majority of the diversity observed is based on cultivated varieties with exclusively vegetative reproduction. On iNaturalist, I would say that the cultivated/wild ratio for banana is around 99/1. But ecological studies on banana rely to a very large extent on these cultivated forms. Of course, we will put aside those that grow in pots, in greenhouses or in industrial plantations. But for the rest, all the plants listed on iNaturalist are the basis of our work, and the main reason why I invest myself on the site. These are observations that are relevant to my studies. Of course, I am particularly happy when real wild banana trees are registered, but this is very rare. All this to say how interested I am in the possibility in this case of registering cultivated forms on iNaturalist. However, this does pose two main problems, as this is not the primary purpose of the site:

• Banana are generally not tagged as cultivated when they should logically be. However, it suits me very well because it allows me to make them reach the research grade they would never have otherwise. See the whole discussion on the subject in this thread.
• The limits of the Latin botanical classification are reached, which cannot be satisfactorily applied to cultivated forms. In the project I created to record the "natural" diversity of the banana tree, I added an additional classification variable to do so.

I think these remarks also apply to many ornamental species, particularly tropical ones.

(And BTW, yes, there are already a lot of banana peels published at iNat...)

[Shaun Swanepoel]

OK. I understand why some things are flagged as " Organism it not wild", but what if someone gives it a thumbs down when it should not be. 

How do I remove the thumbs down to bring it back to proper status if I am the author of that obs?

[cassi saari]

Click the thumbs up.

cassi

On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 3:05 PM Shaun Swanepoel <shaun.swa...@gmail.com> wrote:

OK. I understand why some things are flagged as " Organism it not wild", but what if someone gives it a thumbs down when it should not be. 

How do I remove the thumbs down to bring it back to proper status if I am the author of that obs?

--

[Shaun Swanepoel]

Thanks Cassi, and Tonyrebello who posted on my obs concerned, yes that does work.

But could I suggest that if someone does change something on your obs then to please leave a comment as to why. That way you would get a better idea on their thinking.

[cassi saari]

When some people are reviewing hundreds or maybe even thousands of observations a day, it's not possible to leave a comment on every one. But always feel free to @ tag people and ask questions.

cassi

[Ilja Fescenko]

I would like to stress some points that seems have been missed in this discussion:

1) The problem of captive species is rather exaggerated. Posted aquarium/zoo and pots dwellers relatively rare appeared, and can be tolerated. Especially, because they are posted by children or newcomers. 

2) For a scientist is very easy to postprocess georeferenced data to see which observation is in area or not. Normally, she/he does not want that data would be changed by subjective voting. 

3) Flag Wild/captive would be useful if related only to an observation. It means that decision about not wild animal/pet should be made only based on observation (apartment details in photo, georeferenced in zoo).  Ideally, an observer should not know nothing about a species area or natural history to make an objective decision.. An observation is a FACT collected by a citizen, iNaturalist helps to identify species, but researches are those who interpret the data. 

4) This hot discussion would not have a place if "not wild" species would not be dropped from the identification process. 

суббота, 22 сентября 2018 г., 14:21:21 UTC-6 пользователь bouteloua написал:

[Ilja Fescenko]

Here is a fresh example how an evident pet could benefit iNaturalist. This aquarium fish provide a first photo of this species to iNaturalist community. Should we toss this observation?

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/18601860

суббота, 24 ноября 2018 г., 11:11:04 UTC-7 пользователь Ilja Fescenko написал:

[cassi saari]

To your #1, 

About 10% of observations in Cook County, Illinois (my usual locale) are tagged as captive/cultivated. This is not a small percentage. That number also does not include the observations that are captive/cultivated but not yet tagged appropriately.

cassi

[Cullen Hanks]

Not “tossed", but it should be flagged as “not wild”, as it is.

Best,

Cullen

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

[Ilja Fescenko]

I prefer to have a flexible filter for not seeing observations I don't like, rather than making the observations less accessible for everybody.  

I hope your proposal will be implemented soon. Thanks. (Also I would like to turn off observations of dead animals..)

суббота, 24 ноября 2018 г., 14:05:00 UTC-7 пользователь bouteloua написал:

[Ilja Fescenko]

Could such "not wild" observations cleaned up as "not interesting" from iNaturalist one day? 

суббота, 24 ноября 2018 г., 15:24:19 UTC-7 пользователь Cullen Hanks написал:

[Charlie Hohn]

no one is going to remove them.That would be really inappropriate. Instead, i think they should be able to get research grade and the RG ones should be used in algorithm training. Since so many newbies who don't know plants are observing cultivated plants, and a stated goal of the algorithm is to help process the multitude of unknown plants posted by newbies, it seems really odd to me that the algorithm wouldn't be trained on those. It would do a ton to help.

[Charlie Hohn]

but yes you should be able to easily filter them out

[tony rebelo]

Should this perhaps be a new thread?

Could I just make use of the opportunity to point out some inconsistencies:

To filter (or filter out)  captive or wild organisms:

* In the Identify tool: one filters "captive" or everything: one cannot filter "only wild".

* In the Explore tool: one toggles wild/captive or leaves both off for "all" (and as you point out, there is no "tagged wild" option: it is really captive or everything else)

* In checklists there is no option: one gets everything if it is captive or wild or not.  (this may be subject to problems with indices, but in the example where I marked both records of a species as "planted" the species still showed up for the species list of the Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens.

* On the taxon page everything is confined to "wild": there is no option for adding the planted data to the map, seasonality or phenology.

lastly: observations that are not wild, are still very useful for training AI, for obtaining data on phenology and for checking identifications.  Despite that "not wild pictures" are not available for "edit photos" on the taxon page - i.e. they cannot be iconic pictures.

It may interest those who maintain that "planted observations are relatively rare", that the vast majority of tourists to Cape Town who use iNaturalist (including many seasoned iNaturalists) post at least one to many observations of planted plants from the Kirstenbosch National Botanical Gardens.  Very few mark them as planted.  see  https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=129550&subview=grid&verifiable=any&iconic_taxa=Plantae :: count the "casuals" compared to those not marked!  (and please dont expect me to mark 900 observations as planted).

[Ilja Fescenko]

An end-user who studies wildernesses and national parks should not have problems with not wild species, but an urban scientist will find this "wild flag" rather meaningless in urban areas.

That is mostly curator who processes tons of data more worries about this duty to classify every observation basing on its wilderness. 

I see that I can create a new place on iNaturalist to specifiy the observation I would like to follow, but I cannot created a hole in the polygon to exclude for example a botanical garden.

Such an option could help some users less worry about captive/planted organisms. 

понедельник, 26 ноября 2018 г., 11:54:23 UTC-7 пользователь tony rebelo написал:

[cassi saari]

Ilja, search for "places with holes" with the URL filter "not_in_place", for example:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=35&not_in_place=1859 , which shows all observations in Illinois (place ID 35) but excludes Cook County (place ID 1859, the most populated area, around Chicago).

cassi

[Patrick Alexander]

Regarding creating "holes"--that's what I did for my area (southern New Mexico and adjacent Texas), I created a user-defined place that does not include the city of El Paso to keep most of the cultivated plants out of my search results. I don't think there's a way to do that within the iNaturalist interface (although Cassi points out a work-around!) but you can also create user-defined places by uploading geographic files from a GIS program. In my case, I created a user-defined place shapefile in the free program QGIS and uploaded that. I assume you could do the same in Google Earth, though I don't use Google Earth much... most people who don't use GIS software much find Google Earth more user-friendly.

[Patrick Alexander]

On 11/26/18, 11:54 AM, tony rebelo wrote:

* In the Identify tool: one filters "captive" or everything: one cannot filter "only wild".

If you don't click either "captive" or "casual", your search results will only include "wild" observations. So, you can filter "only wild", but it is perhaps not as obvious as it should be how to do so.

lastly: observations that are not wild, are still very useful for training AI, for obtaining data on phenology and for checking identifications.

I think this varies across taxa in an unpredictable fashion. Among plants, at least, it is often the case that the cultivated population is made up primarily of cultivars that were chosen precisely because they look different from wild type plants in a way that gardeners find aesthetically appealing (different flower colors, variegated leaves, and so forth). For instance, wild type Pteris cretica:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/18618952

The commonly cultivated variegated form of Pteris cretica:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/10758969

A "ruffled" cultivated form of Pteris cretica:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/1002779

I assume that including the anomalous cultivated forms in the AI's training set would decrease the accuracy of its IDs.

Regards,
Patrick

[Charlie Hohn]

i don't see why the algorithm couldn't just do both though. I am not an expert on how it works but i think you could just train it to see if there is a difference when marked cultivated and if so prompt the user to check if it is?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.