Piloting an Establishment Annotation with Amphibians and Reptiles
We’re piloting a new Establishment annotation with Amphibians and Reptiles to track observations of organisms that are wild but likely don’t belong to an established population.
Why are we doing this?
There is ongoing confusion about whether observations of non established individuals such as escaped pets should be marked as wild or captive/cultivated. Here’s an example.
What does Establishment mean?
The Establishment annotation has a single value: “Not Established”. Observations of individuals belonging to established populations should not have the “Not Established” value. Established populations are native populations or introduced populations that are self-sustaining.
For Amphibians and Reptiles, the Not Established value should be set for observations of escaped pets, released pets, hitchhikers on nursery plants, populations confined to within greenhouses, or (for sea turtles and sea snakes) extreme vagrancy (e.g. an asian sea snake washing up in California). Long-lived escaped/released pets such as turtles should be assumed to be Not Established unless there is evidence that the population is reproducing.
There is no value to mark observations as Established, only as Not Established. We did this because we wanted to replicate the voting between binary states behavior that occurs in the Data Quality Assessment using Annotations without impacting the existing user interface.
Why just Reptiles and Amphibians?
Reptiles and amphibians are a good place to start because they account for a large portion of controversial escaped / released pet observations but they aren’t prone to less defined states (e.g. extreme vagrancy in birds, pinioned ducks, managed ungulates, garden volunteer plants, etc.) which may require more discussion about the definition of Not Established before rolling this annotation out to other taxa.
How does this impact Captive/Cultivated?
We’d like to clarify that observations of individuals not in captivity at the time they were encountered should not be marked as Captive/Cultivated. For example:
- A pet frog encountered in a terrarium should be flagged as Captive/Cultivated
- A frog encountered in the wild but temporarily confined for observation should not be flagged as Captive/Cultivated (assuming the location/date to when/where it was encountered).
- A frog that escaped (or was released) from captivity and was encountered in the wild should not be flagged as Captive/Cultivated
A note on gray areas
We’ve tried to be as clear as possible on where the line between Captive and Wild and Established and Not Established states should lie. But there are broad gray areas between these states and many states are simply unknowable. We therefore don’t expect there to always be agreement for every gray area observation. Please use comments on the observation to work towards a shared understanding, but please make an effort to be respectful and polite in your comments and remember we can disagree without being disagreeable.
How do I exclude Not Established Reptiles and Amphibians from my searches?
We added some new Explore parameters that allow you to manually construct URLs to exclude Not Established observations from your searches. Here are some examples:
- a search for reptiles in the US state of Colorado excluding any that are not established
- a search for not established reptiles in Colorado
- a search for not wild reptiles in Colorado
We’re excited that by applying the Species Tab view to search number (1) above iNaturalist can now filter the set of reptiles typically found in field guides which are generally restricted to established species only.
It also makes it easier to surface newly established populations, for example Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail (Aspidoscelis exsanguis) is not in the field guide above but is has been documented on iNaturalist as a newly established species in Colorado.
What about the escapee/non-established observation field value?
Many have been using the Escapee/Non-established Observation Field. While this annotation serves the same purpose, we did not migrate over data from the Observation Field. But please feel free to use that as a resource when adding your own annotations. It’s currently impossible to construct searches like number (1) above using Observation Fields so we encourage you to use the Annotation for Amphibians and Reptiles.
Comments
Very nice to see this!
Also very much a thank you for further clarification that escaped observations do count as wild. I know you've done this before but lots of people continue to vote not wild and claim your old clarifications are outdated for one reason or another.
We updated some text in the help documentation, to make the fact that released/escaped pets, hitch-hikers, and vagrants are considered wild clearer:
"Checking captive / cultivated means that the observation is of an organism that exists in the time and place it was observed because humans intended it to be then and there. Likewise, wild / naturalized organisms exist in particular times and places because of other reasons (e.g. members of native or established non-native populations or released/escaped pets, hitch-hikers, or vagrants)
they intended to do so (or because of intention of another wild organism). The main reason we try to mark things like this is because iNat is primarily about observing wild organisms, not pets, animals in zoos, garden plants, specimens in drawers, etc., and manyourscientific data partners are often not interested in(or downright alarmed by)observations of captive or cultivated organisms."Are these "wild" observations of escaped pets still going to be imported into GBIF or other data aggregators???
Please add this for ants! It is not uncommon for a tropical ant to be shipped to a cold place in a flowerpot or something, but not actually be established there, and ants are also a taxon where legitimate range extensions are happening and being discovered (I've personally observed range extensions of 3 species just in my county) so having a way to distinguish the 2 would be super useful (ants established in greenhouses or other indoor spaces where they could never survive the winter would be a gray area).
I really would like to be able to see a map of Solenopsis invicta obs that includes recent expansions due to climate change, but not the random worker shipped to another state in some product
@loarie
What about observations like this: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/136472215
This animal is not a hitchhiker or an escapee. It is a fully established but entirely indoor population. The original animals hitchhiked in on plants, but nowadays they breed freely there.
I assume the correct course of action would be wild and established? Those are both correct, after all. Or do all-indoor populations count differently for some reason?
We clarified the text above that reptiles and amphibians confined to within greenhouses should be considered Not Established. Thanks for raising this scenario. One perhaps useful way of thinking about the Established set in the context of Amphibians and Reptiles is would the species show up in a typical local field guide or not.
@loarie As a birder, I really wouldn't think of what a field guide says as anything important, considering most field guides for North America leave out the majority of established introduced species. Are they truly more reliable for reptiles?
In the case of ants local field guides may include indoor only species, as some of these may establish colonies in commercial or residential buildings, not just greenhouses, and may even spread from building to building, creating established populations consisting entirely of indoor pests
@loarie Yeah that system (for indoor introductions) works fine for herps but it would be a slippery slope if this annotation is ever introduced to other taxa. Many iconic species, such as House Mice and the indoor cockroaches, are only able to survive in temperate climates due to the indoors. And as mentioned insects can become quite common as indoor pests, spreading from building to building.
I figure you're probably already aware of this, and it works out fine for now, but it's something you should be thinking about if you ever plan on expanding use of this annotation.
Please add for plants as well! Some plants will escape nurseries/gardens during the summer in the eastern/northern US, but are unable to survive the winters there. Examples: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/96475961, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/64801947
Glad to see this change finally being made!
@raymie, Regarding reptile field guides, I would say they are better about introduced populations. Every field guide I can think of off the top of my head includes introduced species. I'm guessing this is due to reptile guides having a lot fewer species to cover than bird guides. Though there might be a significant delay between when an introduced population is officially recognized and when the next edition of a field guide is released to add it.
@loarie Can you confirm for the record that an escapee or hitchhiker observation should not be marked as location is inaccurate unless there is an actual reason to believe this is the case? As I've been going through these observations, I've had to vote almost as many locations as accurate as organisms wild.
@loarie Can you also confirm that indoor populations, such as the anole linked above, should be considered wild as well?
@raymie - I think the Anole population in Buffalo is a rather special case. I think they should be considered as "in captivity". Although they are freely reproducing in a greenhouse, there is no possibility of spread beyond that greenhouse or establishment of a breeding population outside due to the climate. So how is it any different than a captive reproducing population of lizards in a zoo exhibit?
But...if the Greenhouse was in South Carolina, I guess the answer would be different?
Difficult issues, but I'm glad we are moving towards some consistency in application.
@sandboa The difference is that the Brown Anoles were never intentionally introduced into the greenhouse in Buffalo. The founders of the population were hitchhikers (which are of course considered wild), but then began to breed.
It's no different than cockroaches, House Mice, or tropical ants in temperate climates.
I'm looking forward to seeing this expanded to other taxa, and I'll keep an eye out for discussion and clarifications around how to mark these cases. I've observed several members of a self-sustaining, unintentional population of Hasarius adansoni within a large greenhouse, for example, so this annotation and the wild/captive guidance would be relevant to those observations.
@raymie - but I would argue that since they are trapped in that greenhouse by the surrounding climate, they are effectively captive. They aren't really any different than any of the plants in the greenhouse other than their accidental origin?
@sandboa They certainly could travel outside the greenhouse into other buildings during the summer. Volunteer plants in greenhouses have traditionally been considered wild.
I also fail to see how this is any different from House Mice and the pest cockroaches, which are only able to survive in temperate climates by retreating indoors in winter.
It also feels really weird that the founding members of the population would be considered wild, but the offspring would not.
They also are not there intentionally, which would of course make them wild by iNat's definition any way you slice it. I'm just trying to get official confirmation by the iNat team so I have something to point to when people inevitably argue on observations.
I second the question as to whether these will still be imported via GBIF? Every herp guide contains well-documented cases of established species, or at least hypothetically or potentially occurring species to the region or state it is for. But there are also a lot fewer herps to cover (at least in the U.S.), and, with the exception of a very few, they are not apt at long-distance movement without some sort of aid from humans.
Things such as house mice, German cockroaches, etc. are not strictly associated with humans and urbanized landscapes; they can be found in more "naturalized" (for lack of better term) environments as well, albeit usually less commonly. A. sagrei, and other similar hitchhiker herp species, however, I am aware of no such freely-established populations occurring in the natural environment in all 50 states, except for Florida and maybe a few other southern-tier states.
One example here (at least where there are no buildings): https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/203655728
This could be tangential, but when I did your search for reptiles in Colorado to find the newly established population of Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail - Aspidoscelis exsanguis, it shows the Chihuahan Spotted Whiptail as "Introduced" there in Colorado, but it is not "Introduced" 30 miles across the border in New Mexico, and it just seems like a natural range expansion, rather than an "introduced" species, which I understand to be a species that arrived where it is with human help.
Can this be expanded to plants, please?
I have encountered observations (and have made some myself) where it is either dubious whether the plant arrived there by itself (and is therefore wild), as garden waste (and will persist for some years and the wither off, and not really wild) or was it planted there; some garden plants persist even decades after abandonement (without spreading), for those, it is difficult to consider them cultivated...
Great new feature! Hopefully identifier bias will not continue to be a problem. Unfortunately, I see a tendency of some herp identifiers to intentionally down grade observations to the captive category or mark as not wild (when it meets every criteria in the guidelines). My interpretation after attempting to show the definitions and iNat guidelines to these users, is that the individuals are concerned that if a species (i.e. Ball Pythons) are detected and determined to be "wild" that this could lead to future legislation around captive ownership and they simply will not follow the guidelines or accept alternate views. Unfortunately, these individuals are very quick to down vote valid observations, and then the observation is lost in the casual/captive purgatory. I think this a blatant disregard for the role of iNat in helping to detect potential invasions or expansions of populations, but the users have shown that they are not interested in reason or logic.
@manderson If someone is knowingly and intentionally misusing DQA as you describe, that is a suspendable offense and staff should be emailed, or you can contact me or another curator. (there is no way to flag a DQA vote) If it is the OP voting wrong, then you can just flag the observation.
What exactly is the legislative issue you are saying you think motivates this?
@insectobserver123 Unfortunately this is very common practice among certain herp identifiers. They seem to want to get observations casual in any way possible, and they don't seem to care what method that means. Take a look through the herp observation in the "Escapees from Captivity" project and you'll find examples pretty quickly. It's mostly just a few users doing it.
I just looked through a fair number of the snake observations in "Escapees from Captivity" and there were clearly a few people that were marking a lot of observations "not wild" and sometimes "location is not accurate". One of them indicates that if there is no established population in the place of the observation then it is not "wild".
@stewartwechsler That indication is incorrect, as shown by this blog post.
@insectobserver123 thank you. I will send you the obs and comments I am familiar with directly so not to name the identifier publicly.
My comment about legislation relates to the application of the Lacey Act to manage the spread of invasive species. (Honestly, I am not sure I agree with all of the uses of the act, but I believe that it may help stop the spread of some species). Here is a quote from the wildlife society, describing the Act if you are not familiar with it: The injurious wildlife provision of the Lacey Act enables USFWS to manage the importation of any wildlife species deemed “injurious to the health and welfare of humans, the interests of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and the welfare and survival of wildlife resources of the U.S.” The injurious species language in the Lacey Act has become the primary vehicle in the U.S. for preventing the introduction and spread of invasive species and pathogens. USFWS, through the regulatory process, maintains a list of injurious species
I think (again, only my opinion) that certain herp breeders, collectors, and users of iNat see the potential inclusion of any non-established species on the "list" to be dangerous to their interests. Again, in the case of Ball Pythons, there are no established populations, but the number of escaped individuals is substantial (yes, most of those escapees in Wisconsin die in November, but the Florida individuals could and probably do survive for awhile). If USFWS included Ball Pythons (or other commonly identified "escapees from captivity") under the Lacey Act, then all breeders and keepers would be impacted, so the few individuals I am referring to are blocking evidence of they escapees from going out as research grade on iNat. I know, and probably most users know, that USFWS is not using iNat data exclusively to make their decisions, but it could be a primer for the discussion about certain species or used as an early warning system (I personally would promote this feature, but others see it as a threat to their passion. BTW I have been a "keeper" of herps for almost 30years know and I love my pet reptiles, so this is not coming from a reptile-hater ;) ).
Sorry for the long replies, this has been an issue that has bothered me for sometime on iNat and I have never really figured out a way to deal with it. I did not think it rose to the leave of suspendable offense, but this new feature shows that it is a much more systemic issue. So again thank you for adding the feature.
@raymie and @stewartwechsler I have tried to directly respond to some of these comments about "wild" must equal "established" and the users ignore or argue that their definition is better than the policy.
@manderson80 Thanks, please message me whatever evidence you have of this and I will look into it, intentionally falsifying DQA is explicitly listed as as suspendable offense https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/community+guidelines and is very damaging to data.
This is a tricky situation. While it is against the guidelines to falsify DQA, in some ways it has always been a matter of the individual's personal perspective. It has never been absolutely clear what it means for an animal to be "wild".
It would have been better if the descriptor had been "in captivity/under captive care/under cultivation" rather than wild vs not wild. Although even then it is sometimes a difficult discrimination to make.
Obviously people who are doing it specifically to be disruptive should be removed, but I suspect most people doing it just have a different perspective.
The question another user asked me once was "If someone lets their cat out into their front yard, is it automatically "wild"? How long does it have to be out before it becomes wild? How far would it have to wander?"
Tricky calls much of the time.
@sandboa I agree to some extent with the wild DQA, but there are also situations where a user goes something along the lines of "I know that on iNat escapees are supposed to be wild but that's stupid and I'm going to vote wild anyway". Is that really acceptable?
As for users voting escapees location inaccurate or no evidence of organism, I think it's very clear what the policy would be there.
I agree that it can be hard to tell, it only becomes a community guidelines violation when a user persists in voting captive on clear cut wild obs after being informed of the policy, which is what raymie alleged is happening
Neither side of the cat debate will be suspended unless they act really disruptive, but the hypothetical person who says "I know that on iNat escapees are supposed to be wild but that's stupid and I'm going to vote captive anyway" might be suspended, especially if they ignore staff and curator warnings
@raymie, please assume people mean well. We're doing our best to provide clarity, but there are broad gray areas here and sometimes the best coarse of action is to agree to disagree.
@loarie can we get clarification as to whether the policy that escaped pets not be marked captive applies to all taxa or just those taxa which have an option to mark as not established
For example, you say "A frog that escaped (or was released) from captivity and was encountered in the wild should not be flagged as Captive/Cultivated" but what if this was domestic rat and not a frog?
Add a Comment