New Evidence of Presence Values Added

Whoops, accidentally posted on the wrong blog post -- just wanted to express enthusiasm at the addition of "Construction", which will be very helpful for spiders.

I agree with adding a term that can mean nest. Myself and others had asked and were confused why that wasn't one of the first of the new annotations to add when new ones were being added a few years ago. It is difficult to find a single term that encompasses nest, etc.

I'd suggest either considering changing the term used, or adding an additional annotation that specifically means nest and nest-like structures, as opposed to other kinds of structures that organisms don't live in (at any life stage). For example, something like "abode," "residence," "constructed abode," or "nest" (if used in a broad sense). The term itself could take some hammering out, but I think there's high value in adding an annotation specifically to mean nest and nest-like structures that also include burrows (dug-out "holes," but which are still a kind of construction in a sense).

Muchas Gracias por agregar los nuevos valores de presencia.
Tengo entre otras cosas observaciones de fragmentos de huevos y de nidos que realmente no sabía si podía subirlos.
Cordiales Saludos
René Fernando Bilbao
Mar del Plata/Argentina.

If I remember correctly, it's possible to bulk-annotate observations using observation fields when you upload observations.

We originally linked some annotation values to observation fields but have decided to not do that for new observations, mostly because it's not clear that the person who filled out the field originally intended for it to be used in the way an annotation value is defined. So "Leafmine" is not linked to any observation field. But you could use the Identify page to quickly annotate a lot of observations, eg observations in Leafminers of North America: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?quality_grade=needs_id%2Cresearch%2Ccasual&verifiable=any&project_id=33779&without_term_id=22

The term itself could take some hammering out, but I think there's high value in adding an annotation specifically to mean nest and nest-like structures that also include burrows (dug-out "holes," but which are still a kind of construction in a sense).

Definitely considered it quite a bit but decided that going with the broadest term would be best for implementation, especially for something like translations. An Observation Field could be used to add specificity.

So then how should we annotate molluscan shells? Annotating them as "Evidence of Presence" = "Organism" seems a bit misleading, as no living organism is present.

I'm not a malacologist but I don't think you need to refrain from using "organism" for a shell, and you can annotate it as "dead" as well. I tested out a "shell" annotation for molluscs on our test server and it didn't seem to add much value to the observations as basically all observations of shelled molluscs already have the shell as part of the evidence.

I don't have the Leafmine annotation option for this observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/120713697 Any idea why? (Insecta)

It might make sense to fold together "fragment" for bone/hair/feather/molt/shell as one annotation.

It might be nice to add an "other indirect" category of observation for pending types of annotations like owl pellets, deer rubs, etc. I've mostly been using "Track" when I annotate these, but it's nice to reserve track for evidence of movement.

On which note: how do I filter my observations for annotation evidence of presence == track, so I can update these to separate out leafmines / constructions from movement marks / footprints?

These are fantastic additions to the annotations - thanks very much! I guess I'm not super clear on the distinction between 'construction' and not construction though. Excluding coral reefs makes sense because that's not really the scope of iNat, and excluding mollusc shells also makes sense because they're directly attached to the animal as you say. But are galls excluded simply because they already have a specific value? If the 'gall' and 'leafmine' didn't already have values, I can't see why they wouldn't also be 'constructions'. But of course, it's useful to have them separated, so it's understandable that they don't count as 'constructions' for our purposes. But if there is some nuanced biological reason, I guess I'm just not understanding it properly - can anyone explain?

Also, RE empty shells - I am against annotating these as organisms, because it doesn't make sense from a biological perspective. They're connected to the body but they're not really part of the body, in the same way that feathers, hair, and eggshells aren't either (or bones, or a discarded moult) (I'd argue that feathers and hair (and bones!) are much more a part of the body than shells are anyway). Shells aren't even made out of cells, so they cannot be organisms. I've pretty much just been refraining from using any evidence of presence annotation on them because none of them really fit. These new ones don't really fit either, so I'm happy to continue leaving them blank. I guess the best solution would be to have a value for shells, but maybe the easiest solution would be to co-opt the 'bones' value or something like that (I think somebody brought up expanding the bones value to cuttlefish at one point).

Adding on the case for shells:
I agree calling a shell an "Organism" is problematic, for all the reasons @matthew_connors has described above. However, just tagging shell observations as "Dead" doesn't solve this, as this can apply to (for example) a mollusc with a dead animal present, not necessarily just a shell. It's surprising that the trial didn't prove a "Shell" annotation to be worthwhile – I'd think it would be handy for sorting iNat data, especially in situations where only shells are known from an area but no live specimens.

Definitely considered it quite a bit but decided that going with the broadest term would be best for implementation, especially for something like translations. An Observation Field could be used to add specificity.

Although nest is among if not the primary annotation most users originally and to present would think of. There are already other options to indicate the life stage of a species, and eggs don't classify as nests. I still recommend a specific annotation for nest and nest-like places species live in at some stage of their life. Vs., construction seems overly broad, and there are also overlapping annotations like tracks. It wouldn't be a problem to also keep an overly general annotation like construction, but nests and equivalents are one of the main forms of animal presence in photos and a primary part of much of animal biology, so would be best to particularly specify in annotations. By contrast, some of the additional currently available annotations are more obscure, so it's hard to understand why they were prioritized while seeming givens like "nest" were never added.

A mollusc shell is part of the animal, like a bone is part of an animal. It's an actual production of the animal, not something added to it. The hard parts of coral are also productions of the organism themselves, not something added. Therefore, mollusc shells and corals can be annotated "organism" and shouldn't be annotated "construction."

Thanks for the new features. I would like to see a separate description for clam shells. The term "Shell" seems acceptable.

Leafmine is not available for Coleoptera, but there are a few beetles that form leafmines, such as Dibolia borealis. But definitely excited about the new annotations. I also just learned about shortcuts because of this post!

@pfau_tarleton I'll try to express my point of view. Many living mammals are photographed with hair and bones (horns). A separately found horns is a "bone", the organism is alive, a found body bones is also a "bone", but the organism is dead. Similarly with wool, a piece of wool does not mean anything (the animal is rather alive), and on a piece of skin found, the animal is rather dead. We were unable to find some species of bivalve mollusks alive, but we did come across individual shell flaps. They can be carried by the current, saving for some time. Should I put "the body is dead"? Rather, such a find resembles a "print".

@bonesigh I don't think shells should count as constructions as they were the animal, just like bones were the animal. Constructions are things made by animals such as dens, burrows, nests, webs, etc.

@tiwane would you change the exclusion of Coleoptera from the leafminer annotation, please?
This one clearly classifies as a mine:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/162703544

About shells: a shell is not a whole organism, of course. It is part of the organism. Given the options available, I would choose "organism" to annotate it, as I used "organism" to annotate the detached leg of a ruminant that I found on a roadside. The shell is certainly not a construction, egg, scat, or track.

Great additions!

Sorry about Coleoptera being excepted for Leafmine, it's now included.

Would it be in accordance with iNat guidelines to annotate a photo with eggs in nest with both 'Egg' and 'Construction'?

That's a good question. I think it's fine - the nest is also part of the evidence and perhaps can be used to identify the organism as well? I don't know much about ID via bird nest but I imagine some are pretty diagnostic.

I have to agree with the addition of a Shell annotation, as it is essentially the equivalent of the bone annotation for vertebrates. And while it is accurate to say that most shelled molluscs could not survive without their shell, if we should be annotating them as organism could we not say something similar about bones? We could also add a description to the annotation to only utilise the shell annotation in the case it is the only evidence of the organism like exists for the bone. There is also a difference between data composed of live/dead organisms compared to that from just shells. For example if we want to look at distribution for a gastropod, given ocean currents their shells could end up in all kinds of places or could even somewhat regularly appear in places where the organisms in life are not present, so having an annotation separate from just "dead organism" would be valuable in cases like that (which are not all that uncommon).

Another question -- Are empty moth pupa cases best marked as "construction"? If empty can they still be marked as "pupa", too?

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/198386611

@matthew_connors - Thanks for the explanations about the pupa cases.

More questions -- So the web constructions by Processionary Moths - Subfamily Thaumetopoeinae and tents by tent caterpillars - Malacosoma could be marked as constructions. Correct?

Bagworms in their twig, leaf, etc. coverings and Caddisfly larva in their pebble or plant material coverings also create some fairly intricate constructions.

Coming from a tracker's opinion "Construction" and "Sign" are counterintuitive in most situations (not completely unnecessary though). Perhaps, @beartracker has something to say about this as well?

Delighted by the addition of leaf-mine especially! (Only slightly disappointed it's not attached to an observation field ;-) Would be better still if annotations could be added directly in the uploader...)

Also it's great to see this regular drip drip of small improvements to the site recently. Great work.

Thanks, this is helping me find a lot of leaf mine observations that haven't been added to leafminer projects! Would it be possible to add Cecidomyiidae to the list of taxa excluded from the "leafmine" value? Flat galls on leaves are often mistaken for mines, but there is no such thing as a leaf-mining cecidomyiid (even though one species has the common name, "boxwood leafminer").