“Untangling the Captive vs. Wild Debate: A Closer Look at Naturalized and Introduced Species”
Perhaps you have noticed this over the past days, weeks or years as you have been browsing through the iNaturalist website. Since I have joined in mid-February of this year as a user, I have seen it quite a few times, and I am starting to get decently annoyed. It is evident that the classification choice between captive and wild for observations is getting out of control.
Let's break the matter down:
1) Do not blindly mark certain observations as captive/cultivated without looking closely at the photo, or the caption. If it is visibly seen that the organism is planted, or captive (such as a Rugosa Rose in a backyard, or an American Goldfinch in a cage), it is okay and suggested to mark the observations as so. However, if there is doubt towards this, and it is unclear, then it is best to leave the observation as normal, and help make it research grade.
2) Naturalized species are not cultivated: I try to repeat this often, however, it seems most people still are defiant to this. If a plant was originally planted, take Clammy Goosefoot or Dappled Willow, and it grew into the environment, it is wild! Defiance to this by blindly marking the specimen as not wild can cause invasive species to spread better by smaller control and knowledge. It will be more hidden and the public will not notice it as easy. Researchers will consider it a cultivated plant that is just kept for personal preferences. Do not do this, please. It is sabotaging functional information.
I know this is a highly debated topic, but please take this into consideration seriously. It will help make iNaturalist a more accurate database and a better source of accurate information.
