@cgbb2004 can you check the proposed annotation for grammar and correctness? TIA

@tsn I really appreciate the suggestions. I'll rewrite the content offline and let you know when that's done.

I agree with you about the "Issues" section. I think that needs to be removed altogether. Redesigning the annotation for simplicity and clarity will avoid some issues but others will remain regardless. There will always be issues.

Adding a fifth annotation value ("other reproductive structures") represents a tradeoff (as mentioned in the googledoc). It's probably better to keep things simple by excluding that step. Let's try that and see how it goes.

@cgbb2004 thanks for checking!

Your input on this proposal is appreciated!

@m_whitson @graysquirrel @frontyardscientist @gijsroaming @annkatrinrose @lynkos @tpollard @sedgequeen

(You were tagged based on your interest in a related forum thread)

I'm fine with the wording as it is. I don't think this is an improvement. However, it doesn't seem to mess with the categories, so I don't have big objections. Well, I do have some issues.

First: Are you really going to write all those words? Or just "Flowers" instead of "Flowering"? If the latter, fine. If the former, please don't.

"Fruit: At least one seed-bearing fruit is visible and attached to the plant" No, this doesn't work. Often the fruit is found beneath the tree and that's just because it's ripe and just fell, and it should be marked "Fruiting" or "Fruit."

The "seed-bearing" bit is esoteric, an attempt to solve a problem (people who want to apply this category to non-flowering plants?) but making it worse. First problem, seed-bearing is what fruits do; this is redundant. Second, how are we supposed to know if the fruit actually has seeds? Cut into it? Does this mean we aren't supposed to mark intact fruits as Fruits? Third, do you really want aborted fruits not marked as Fruits?

I have the same objection but even stronger to "No reproductive structures: No sexual reproductive structures (in whole or part) are visible" that I do to "No evidence of flowering." It's probably an insolvable issue, but often last years reproductive structures are visible when the plant is past bloom and past fruiting. It sounds like you want to have the plant marked fruiting or something if it has empty glumes or old panicle branches or an old, dried fruit. I don't think that's what you should want. (You could be using "seed-bearing" [see above] as a way to weasel out marking of old, dead fruiting structures as fruits, but it doesn't really work because if it did, it would force old, dead fruiting structures into limbo, neither fruits nor "No Reproductive Structures.")

If you want to write, "Fruits or Seeds," OK, but if you want to make a new category for seeds, don't.

If you wanted to use something like the above suggestion -- fruit or seeds -- that would also work. It's just that observations of seeds alone need some category other than not reproducing to fall into. Plus, realize that many observers will think that an acorn or a maple samara is a seed and not a fruit.

Good a lot of my issues are not issues. That's good.

Still, defining fruit as only fruit still hanging on the plant is not appropriate. And if we were to take that "seed-bearing" wording seriouly, it would cause issues, too, but so it goes.

Good to try to clarify these issues, but I don't think it's entirely possible.

-- Barbara

I don't think that the paucity of phenology annotations on existing observations is because the Plant Phenology terms are confusing. I think most users would naturally use the existing annotations correctly. I think the issue is mainly that they just aren't aware that they're expected to make these annotations - I don't think it's even possible to add these annotations from the iPhone app, for example.

So, the proposal to update the terms seems harmless to me, and possibly helpful, but if the issue it's intended to address is the lack of annotations on observations, I would be very surprised if it made much difference. I don't really think the existing terms are confusing to most users, nor that non-botanist users can't quickly see what "phenology" means.

@sedgequeen I appreciate your comments. You bring up some very good points. The current definition for fruiting is: Fruit visible and still attached to the plant. Are you okay with that definition? If not, what should be changed?

If there are many observations that can't be annotated with the Plant Phenology annotation (a failed bud, a flowerless stalk, a withered flower, or an empty seed pod) then can an "other/doesn't fit/can't annotate/unsure" type of choice be added? By providing a list of choices for annotation, you imply that one or more of them can be used, and I think one source of confusion and error for users is that if they want to annotate, they choose one of the annotations, even if it doesn't quite fit.
As far as an example of where a seed (or "other/unsure") annotation could be useful, for many colorful seeded legumes like Abrus, Erythrina, and Ormosia, people often just find a seed and photograph it ( https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/190546792 ) and so there wouldn't be a correct choice. Also, many non-botanists interpret dry fruit as seeds (acorns, maple samaras, sunflower "seeds") and so might be hesitant to annotate those as "fruit".

Thanks for adding me to this discussion. I support this update but have some additional thoughts:

I am struggling to accept the sentence "Everyone knows a flower when they see one whereas the word “flowering” tends to cause confusion". I agree with the assessment that 'flower' is more straightforward of a word than 'flowering', but there are many plant structures that can be confusing even in commonplace specimens (Bougainvillea leaves can easily be confused for flower petals, Droseraceae structures are commonly thought of as flowers, Cocos flowers could be interpreted as fruits/seeds, etc.). Also, replacing 'flowering' with 'flower' raises the issue that there is no real definitive end to the existence of the flower (fruits are ultimately just the expansion of the flower's ovary, so you can still discern the remains of the flower on many fruits, e.g. on the bottom of an apple).

That being said, I think the proposed wording is definitely an improvement, but the real value of updating the annotation options would be to add annotation options for structures that are currently ambiguous or excluded from the options. I understand the issues with including a catch-all, but perhaps we could add something more specific.

Based on the discussion raised by @pdabell I am thinking about two annotiation options: persistent fruit parts (would include "an empty seed pod", seeds, husks, and entire fruits that remain attached from previous reproductive cycles) and persistent flower parts (would include "a failed bud, a flowerless stalk, a withered flower"). I believe this would substantialy improve utility of plant annotations (both for help with IDing and for understanding the lifecycles of reproductive structures) without adding excessive complexity or requiring a major overhaul to existing annotations.

Two small additional remarks:
1) I think it is very important that the 'Fruit' annotation includes fruit and seed, since the distinction between fruit and seed can be confusing and in the common vernacular fruits and seeds are often mixed up
2) I second that seed-bearing should be omitted from the definition of 'Fruit', since it is redundant (fruits are inherently seed-bearing structures) and actual seed-bearing is often impossible to determine from a photo

Thanks to everyone for your input. Please take a few moments to consider the following modified proposal based on comments:

Reproductive Structures
1. Flower bud: At least one closed flower bud is visible
2. Flower: At least one open flower is visible
3. Fruit: At least one fruit or seed is visible
4. No reproductive structures: No sexual reproductive structures (in whole or part) are visible

Thumbs up or down?

The new proposal should work. No system will be perfect, but this looks pretty straightforward to use for people both with and without a lot of botanical background.

You want to replace a significant annotation about plant phenology with one about reproductive structures? And add "seed is visible" to the definition of fruit? Without seed yet, a plant can still be fruiting, but it can't be called fruit. So too when a fruit is no longer whole but only includes some of its organs. If you are trying to make understanding this annotation simpler for the average user, I don't think this is helpful. If a store advertises they have apples but all I see when I get there are bushels of apple cores--with the seeds (of course)--I would be rather displeased!

Your new annotation would mark the 1st of the following observations of Allium burdickii in the month of May as having fruit and the 2nd one it wouldn't mark at all: 1) https://inaturalist.ca/observations/77819586 ; and 2) https://inaturalist.ca/observations/6379781 . Interesting. As it is, the specimens in the latter observation are fruiting but the specimens in the former one completed that active, developmental stage the summer before.

@gijsroaming , where on iNaturist is that definition of fruiting?' At the discussion, 'When Do You Apply the Annotation "Fruiting" to Flowering Plants?' that @trscavo started at iNat Forums (see https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/when-do-you-apply-the-annotation-fruiting-to-flowering-plants/46015 ) that portion of an iNat definition wasn't given. For how the USA National Phenology Network (https://www.usanpn.org) defines "Fruit" (and "Ripe fruit") for a monitoring program it operates for citizen scientists, see my quote in that discussion from its document, 'Phenophase Primer for Plants: Understanding Plant Phenophases for Nature’s Notebook (June 2017 DRAFT, USA-NPN Education & Engagement Series 2016-002) (a link to the document is with the quote) at https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/when-do-you-apply-the-annotation-fruiting-to-flowering-plants/46015/36?u=pdabell .

@trscavo , yes, I am familiar with that. I am referring to the words, "fruit OR seed is visible" that @gijsroaming mentioned. The definition that is currently there does not include eaten apples (see my 2nd last comment).

What objective does changing these annotations' names and tooltips serve? I'm not certain that they should change at all. However I like the idea of switching active verbs for nouns, as the latter do not require active budding, flowering or fruiting on the part of the annotated plant. It's especially important to broaden the scope of the fruit/fruiting annotation, so that observations of lone fruits or plants whose fruits have been shed can be annotated as such. I would retain Plant Phenology over Reproductive Structures though

@gijsroaming , I was quoting what you wrote in an above comment. That was, "The most recent definition clearly says "fruit OR seed is visible.""

Phenology is has developmental stages. They are not inactive. The simplest way to address the issue of how to note fruit parts after they are no longer developing is to add observation fields such as, 'Persistent seed,' and 'Persistent fruit' (not the same as fruiting since the persistent fruit is no longer developing). We just need for a field tp be added for making them easily searchable (not just by downloading a data query).

It would be more complicated to do but I wonder if an annotation field such as 'Persistence' could be added with various options. Yes, it's a term that, like 'plant phenology' isn't known to the average user but learning new botanical terms and their applicability to an observation is far from difficult anymore!

@pdabell I love this observation! It makes a strong case for an additional annotation value. Would you be in favor of adding "Persistent fruit" to the Reproductive Structures annotation? Once the current proposal is out the door, I'd be willing to work on a second proposal to add a new value.

@trscavo , although I don't currently support your proposed changes, I do think adding a way to annotate or note the post-fruiting, persistent fruit and seeds. I certainly don't own the idea so if you want to use the 'Persistent seed' annotation, that is fine with me.

@pdabell the only way we'll get the attention of the developers is if we speak with one voice. Since the current proposal already has broad support, the compromise is obvious: We make two proposals. The first proposal is the current (modest) proposal. The second proposal is to add a new annotation value (I'll call it "persistent fruit" for now). The two proposals can (and probably should) be made at the same time, so that staff can understand the true scope of work to be done. Speaking for myself, it's both or none.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there are lingering feature requests that need attention. Perhaps the most important of these is the addition of a user interface to the web upload page. The new mobile app should support annotations as well. All of this requires significant developer support (which is limited). To succeed, we need to make a strong case with one voice.

Thanks @cgbb2004 Happy Thanksgiving to you! :-)

@trscavo , I agree that your case will need broad support. I only learned of it because @gijsroaming mentioned me in a comment. To broaden the support, and still-necessary feedback, I suggest you post it at iNatForum. Not as or in a comment with another post (as I did with a discussion you started) but as a new post.

Happy 2nd Thanksgiving! (In Canada, we celebrated it in early October.)

@trscavo , that is good to hear.

Nice work, observation field is a nice next step! Good to note that fruit here also refers to persistent seeds and individual parts/organs of fruits?

@gijsroaming I intentionally did not add a definition to the observation field since I don't really know what the definition should be. After struggling with this for awhile, I suspect it's going to be difficult to come up with a definition that works for everyone. I'm prepared to accept a final proposal that gives no definition for "persistent fruit". (There are other annotation values currently in that boat, so a definition is not strictly required for implementation.)

That said, our current working definition of "fruit" includes the phrase "fruit or seed", and I expect any reasonable definition of "persistent fruit" will include that phrase as well. You've convince me of that :-)

I don't know what you mean by "individual parts/organs of fruits"? Can you give an example?

@trscavo , yes, I think the distinction of the persistent fruit (with flesh) and persistent seed in the abovementioned table in the Wikipedia entry is important. I also think it should be in the proposed annotation. If you haven't yet, please see the text I quoted from the USA National Phenology Network document that I provide a link to at https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/when-do-you-apply-the-annotation-fruiting-to-flowering-plants/46015/36?u=pdabell . If you familiarize yourself with the USA-NPN, you'll likely appreciate the significant distinction between fruit (even past fruiting but with the fleshy parts remaining) and dehisced fruit with persistent seed (such as is common with Allium tricoccum.

With "individual parts/organs of fruits" I mean non/seed parts of the fruit that persist. So where Allium tricoccum loses its fleshy fruit and only retains the fruit part ´seed´ other plants might retain other parts after shedding its seed. Take poppies (Papaveroideae) for example, which will release their seeds from its seed pod for wind dispersal and retain the seed pod long after all seeds are gone. The same could be said for plants with bursting fruits like peas (e.g. Lathyrus oleraceus). The dry, empty seed pod might not be a full fruit with all organs in place anymore, but I believe it should still be marked as persistent fruit. I agree completely with @sedgequeen in that the difference is important and should be marked appropriately on the wikipedia page, but should be combined in this citizen science project.

Therefore, I believe it should also be clear in the annotation field that it refers to both "fruit and seed" in the same way that the working definition does. If you want to wait with including this in the annotation field until the working definition is implemented as a standard on the platform, that is fine, but we shouldn´t rely on people reading up on the iNat definition of fruit to understand how to use the annotation ´persistent fruit´ correctly in the way that the USA National Phenology Network does. How people enter into the Nature's Notebook project and end up on the iNaturalist platform are substantially different, which justifies a more all-encompassing annotation that requires less learning on iNat.

@sedgequeen I agree with you...modifying the Plant Phenology annotation to distinguish between "fruit or seed" and "persistent fruit or seed" leads to significant complexity. I don't know how to implement such a change without introducing new terminology. The word "persistent" is not used consistently by botanists, let alone non-botanists. See: Deciduous and Persistent

But let me ask a different question. How would you annotate the following observation? https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/77819586

I'd call it fruiting. I'd leave it to anybody doing research on the phenology of the group to work out the subtleties, if they felt it important.

Re: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/77819586

@sedgequeen I agree with you...I too would annotate that observation as "fruiting" since the plant is dispersing seed (which is the rule-of-thumb I use in situations like this). I suspect most people would agree the plant is "fruiting".

@pdabell I see that you added an observation field called "Persistent seed(s)". That's fine but what is its intended use? An open text field limits your search options.

To illustrate, I added an observation field called "Persistent plant part" with a controlled vocabulary. In that way, I can search for all observations with persistent fruit or all observations with persistent seed, and so forth.

Your mileage may vary of course.

You can, of course, add any field that you find useful for your work. In the case of "persistent seeds" as something different from "fruit," it would be unwise to assume anybody else would have the knowledge to fill out the field the way you feel it should be.