Everyone can see the coordinates unless the taxon is threatened.
Obscured
Public coordinates shown as a random point within 10KM of the true coordinates. True coordinates are only visible to you and the curators of projects to which you add the observation.
private
Coordinates completely hidden from public maps, true coordinates only visible to you and the curators of projects to which you add the observation. Observations with private coordinates will still be used to verify place check lists.
Hah, I've made the Corydalus / Chauliodes mixup before. Is the main difference the way the head flares out from the pronotum on Corydalus but not on Chauliodes?
Yes, the pronotum is more slender in Corydalus than it is in Chauliodes. Other useful characters include the presence of white markings in many of the wing cells in Corydalus and the presence of pectinate antennae in Chauliodes (the antennae are never pectinate in Corydalus as far as I'm aware).
Yeah, right now you can only have one identification per observation. I've considered making it so old identifications stick around so people can see the full history of the discussion, but haven't gotten around to testing it out.
I think that would be a good idea. Sometimes old identifications are valuable in their own right and it can be useful to see the full history. This is just my opinion of course, but it's how we do things within the scientific community. For example, determination labels are never removed from specimens, even when newer revised labels are added, as the older labels are part of the history of that specimen.
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)
iNaturalist.org shares licensed observation data with
several data partners so your data can be more accessible to
scientists and other researchers.
If you'd like us to share your observations with data partners, make
sure you've chosen to license your observations with a Creative
Commons license.
External Links
This observation has been incorporated into the following external websites:
some rights reserved
Comments & Identifications
Some kind of dobsonfly, I think.
Thanks guys. Looking at pictures on Bugguide.net, it does seem to match rasticornis.
Hah, I've made the Corydalus / Chauliodes mixup before. Is the main difference the way the head flares out from the pronotum on Corydalus but not on Chauliodes?
Yes, the pronotum is more slender in Corydalus than it is in Chauliodes. Other useful characters include the presence of white markings in many of the wing cells in Corydalus and the presence of pectinate antennae in Chauliodes (the antennae are never pectinate in Corydalus as far as I'm aware).
Agreed. Coloration of the pronotum is consistent with C. rastricornis.
So when I agree with an identification, the system automatically updates and/or removes my earlier identification? (sorry, I'm new to iNaturalist!)
Yeah, right now you can only have one identification per observation. I've considered making it so old identifications stick around so people can see the full history of the discussion, but haven't gotten around to testing it out.
I think that would be a good idea. Sometimes old identifications are valuable in their own right and it can be useful to see the full history. This is just my opinion of course, but it's how we do things within the scientific community. For example, determination labels are never removed from specimens, even when newer revised labels are added, as the older labels are part of the history of that specimen.
Add a comment
Add an identification