5 ms·

This seems like such a cool idea for a website, but then it's let down by the fact that it's actually First Known Photographs of Living Specimens Posted To INat

by Nition 2y ago

This seems like such a cool idea for a website, but then it's let down by the fact that it's actually First Known Photographs of Living Specimens Posted To INaturalist.com. I thought it'd be a bunch of photos from the 1800s but it's a bunch of photos from the 2020s. For example here is the actual first known photo of a domestic cat: https://i.imgur.com/OKtFMos.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/OKtFMos.jpeg

jeremyjh 2y ago
No, its pretty clear that only first known photographs can be added. If a picture of the species exists in a book somewhere, its not eligible for the project.
mutagen 2y ago
From the About Section of the page: This project is designed to showcase the first known photographs of living specimens of any species. Note that by 'first known' I'm referring to the first known photographs of a species anywhere, not just the first photographs to be submitted to iNaturalist. Two types of observation will be included: 1) First photographic records of undescribed species e.g. this Gasteracantha sp. 2) First photographic records of already described (but obviously relatively uncommon or cryptic) species e.g. this wasp fly. If the male and female of a species are sexually dimorphic, then both are valid to be added to the project. So too if a species has distinct life stages (eg caterpillar/chrysalis/butterfly), they are all valid to be separately added to the project (assuming the other rules apply). Please only add observations depicting live organisms; this therefore excludes specimens such as pinned insects. If you see an observation currently in the project that you know is not the first photograph of that species, and you can show the earlier photograph, please do not hesitate to message me and I'll remove it.
- Steuard 2y ago
  I think that the previous poster's point is that historical photographs are not in-scope to be added to this project: for example, this project will never include the first known photo of a living platypus (or a living cat, as noted), because such photos existed before this project began. The project collects photos posted to iNaturalist that meet the specified criteria. It's a cool collection of modern observations of rare or remote species! But the title could also describe an entirely different research project, focused on historical media rather than modern exploration. That could also be very cool.
  - rendall 2y ago
    > ...historical photographs are not in-scope to be added to this project... because such photos existed before this project began. That contradicts what the website itself says: > This project is designed to showcase the first known photographs of living specimens of any species. Note that by 'first known' I'm referring to the first known photographs of a species anywhere, not just the first photographs to be submitted to iNaturalist. > If you see an observation currently in the project that you know is not the first photograph of that species, and you can show the earlier photograph, please do not hesitate to message me and I'll remove it.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Nition 2y ago
      Both statements are in fact correct and non-contradictory. It's confusing, but I believe what they mean in the guidelines is that there are two criteria - The photos must be on iNaturalist - The photo must be the first photo of the species ever, not just the first photo on iNaturalist That is, if a species was ever photographed anywhere before, outside of iNaturalist, that species can't be part of the project, ever.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
mattigames 2y ago
The quality of that photo is so bad that it arguably hardly counts as anything, I cannot even understand it's head position. I bet most people wouldn't recognize it as a cat unless you tell them first that its supposed to be one.
- Nition 2y ago
  The head is on the far left, drinking from the saucer.
- msephton 2y ago
  So only "good" first photos should count?
  - mattigames 2y ago
    Non-smudged photos yeah, otherwise you could say any smudge of colors is any animal you claim.
    - LoganDark 2y ago
      It's Bigfoot!
      - mattigames 2y ago
        Now I'm wondering what was the first viral fake photo of big foot
    - msephton 2y ago
      I mean, the photo is clearly a cat drinking milk from a saucer. Details and alternative cat photos that are as old (which is "first" is unknown) https://workman.tumblr.com/post/120829319747/houghtonlib-houghtonlib-this-daguerreotype https://workman.tumblr.com/post/120829319747/houghtonlib-hou...
      - mattigames 2y ago

by Nition 2y ago

jeremyjh 2y ago

No, its pretty clear that only first known photographs can be added. If a picture of the species exists in a book somewhere, its not eligible for the project.

mutagen 2y ago

From the About Section of the page: This project is designed to showcase the first known photographs of living specimens of any species. Note that by 'first known' I'm referring to the first known photographs of a species anywhere, not just the first photographs to be submitted to iNaturalist. Two types of observation will be included: 1) First photographic records of undescribed species e.g. this Gasteracantha sp. 2) First photographic records of already described (but obviously relatively uncommon or cryptic) species e.g. this wasp fly. If the male and female of a species are sexually dimorphic, then both are valid to be added to the project. So too if a species has distinct life stages (eg caterpillar/chrysalis/butterfly), they are all valid to be separately added to the project (assuming the other rules apply). Please only add observations depicting live organisms; this therefore excludes specimens such as pinned insects. If you see an observation currently in the project that you know is not the first photograph of that species, and you can show the earlier photograph, please do not hesitate to message me and I'll remove it.

Steuard 2y ago
I think that the previous poster's point is that historical photographs are not in-scope to be added to this project: for example, this project will never include the first known photo of a living platypus (or a living cat, as noted), because such photos existed before this project began. The project collects photos posted to iNaturalist that meet the specified criteria. It's a cool collection of modern observations of rare or remote species! But the title could also describe an entirely different research project, focused on historical media rather than modern exploration. That could also be very cool.
- rendall 2y ago
  > ...historical photographs are not in-scope to be added to this project... because such photos existed before this project began. That contradicts what the website itself says: > This project is designed to showcase the first known photographs of living specimens of any species. Note that by 'first known' I'm referring to the first known photographs of a species anywhere, not just the first photographs to be submitted to iNaturalist. > If you see an observation currently in the project that you know is not the first photograph of that species, and you can show the earlier photograph, please do not hesitate to message me and I'll remove it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nition 2y ago
    Both statements are in fact correct and non-contradictory. It's confusing, but I believe what they mean in the guidelines is that there are two criteria - The photos must be on iNaturalist - The photo must be the first photo of the species ever, not just the first photo on iNaturalist That is, if a species was ever photographed anywhere before, outside of iNaturalist, that species can't be part of the project, ever.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

mattigames 2y ago

The quality of that photo is so bad that it arguably hardly counts as anything, I cannot even understand it's head position. I bet most people wouldn't recognize it as a cat unless you tell them first that its supposed to be one.

Nition 2y ago
The head is on the far left, drinking from the saucer.
msephton 2y ago
So only "good" first photos should count?
- mattigames 2y ago
  Non-smudged photos yeah, otherwise you could say any smudge of colors is any animal you claim.
  - LoganDark 2y ago
    It's Bigfoot!
    - mattigames 2y ago
      Now I'm wondering what was the first viral fake photo of big foot
  - msephton 2y ago
    I mean, the photo is clearly a cat drinking milk from a saucer. Details and alternative cat photos that are as old (which is "first" is unknown) https://workman.tumblr.com/post/120829319747/houghtonlib-houghtonlib-this-daguerreotype https://workman.tumblr.com/post/120829319747/houghtonlib-hou...
    - mattigames 2y ago