The data quality assessment is a summary of an observation's accuracy. All
observations start as "casual" grade, and achieve
"research" grade when
-
the iNat community agrees with the observer's ID, where an "agreeing"
identification is one that matches exactly or is of a child taxon of the
observer's ID. For example, if Scott says it's a mammal and Ken-ichi
says it's Homo sapiens, then Ken-ichi agrees with Scott.
- the observation has a date
- the observation is georeferenced (i.e. has lat/lon coordinates)
- the observation has a photo
Observations will revert to "casual" grade if the above conditions aren't met or
- the community agrees the location doesn't looks accurate (e.g. monkeys in the middle of the ocean, hippos in office buildings, etc.)
- the community agrees the organism isn't wild/naturalized (e.g. captive or cultivated by humans or intelligent space aliens)
Comments & Identifications
I would guess E. stejnegerianus. Was it on the ground along a stream?
It was near a stream. In previous herp census at Bijagual only E. (Craugastor) bransfordii, E. (Craugastor) fitzingeri, and Eleutherodactylus diastema were recorded.
Sorry, bransfordi sounds right and its is the carribean slope version of the species I mentioned above.
After finding this one, I started photographing small frogs from every angle, hoping to be able to ID them later. Didn't always work.
Add a comment
Add an identification