Shorthead seahorse

Posted by taniacann on 2/6/2019

Observation details

When did you see it? Species guess Current ID
2018-12-16 Shorthead Seahorse Shorthead seahorse
Hippocampus breviceps

Description

Observed a seahorse, on a non attached piece of seagrass whilst standing on a pontoon at Port Adelaide Sailing Club.

Activity

markmcg commented
Hi @taniacann. Thank you for adding this observation. I've just sent you an invitation to the Australasian Fishes project. Please accept, and join our fish community. We'd be delighted if you continue to upload your fish observations. :) You have added two photos of the same fish as separate observations. They really should both be in the same observation. Would you mind deleting the observation at this URL, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/20164292, and adding the photo from it to this observation by clicking on the + button below the image above. Thanks heaps. :)
markmcg commented
@rfoster, are you game? :)
sascha_schulz commented
same as https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/20164292
markmcg commented
@sascha_schulz Yep. See my comment above. :)
taniacann commented
Apologies, learning to navigate this page! Yes I already attempted to submit this but couldn't change the location to public. It was recommended to delete and resubmit. I've deleted one seahorse photo to avoid confusion. Hope that was the correct?
sascha_schulz commented
All good Tania!
markmcg commented
Thank you @taniacann. Please keep adding your fish observations. :) Feel free to message me if you have any queries.
danimations commented
Hi all, I just asked iNat forums about the "obscured" setting of this observation. Here's the response I received: "Hippocampus breviceps is set to auto-obscure based on its listing as a CITES Appendix II species." Pity, as it won't appear in the Port Adelaide River project, where it would be a valuable contribution.
rfoster commented
@danimations Hi Dan, I think you've been misinformed - if it were true all H. breviceps observations would be obscured but they aren't (e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/20092368). Even though this one is obscured what stops you adding it to the project manually?
danimations commented
Thanks @rfoster , the Port Adelaide project automatically "collects" data by geolocation... so if the location is obscured, the project simply doesn't pick up the observation. I had a look at other records of the species, and they all appear to be obscured (at least through my web browser).
danimations commented
Thanks @taniacann ... at least your written description of the location clarifies it :)
rfoster commented
Really? I only see this one as obscured. If auto-obscure is on for all CITES II listed taxa then are all Hippocampus records obscured for you? Maybe, as a curator, I don't see it unless it's imposed by the observer. Can't you over-ride the auto-harvest and it to your project manually?
danimations commented
Yes, I looked at half a dozen records of this species, from different observers and going back to some submitted in 2014. The obscuring of location was consistent across them all. You might have species curator goggles/privileges... but that doesn't explain the apparent exception being this one..? Now I'm baffled as to why this record should be an exception... unless it IS manually set to be obscured afterall? And no, there's no manual override to add an individual sighting to a geographically defined collection project.
rfoster commented
What about other Hippocampus species? They are all CITES II listed. It does seem that this record has been manually obscured but iNat does some weird things at times (I've just encountered some 'RG' level observations with absolutely no IDs showing...) If the project is yours have a look and see if you can change the settings to allow manual additions by the project admins. Might be worth trolling through the iNat discussion group for an answer - I'm sure you;re not the first to encounter the problem.
cmcheatle commented
@rfoster you are seeing the other record as unobscured because it was added to the old style Australasian fishes project. On old style project, project admins of which you are one on that project may see obscured coordinates of records otherwise obscured with user permission..
rfoster commented
@cmcheatle ah, okay, thanks for the explanation Chris.
cmcheatle commented
Just to follow up on other points in the thread. Curators, in general or even the very few species level admins still have no special visibility rights, obscured records are still obscured to them like all other users. Users can not override obscuring to make their records public, they can do the reverse to obscure records that would otherwise be public. Obscuring can be set up at the species level either based on conservation status, or manually by a curators. There are even a small number of cases where it may be turned off for a species which has a conservation status (in my home this is to be for some ducks etc, they are listed as vulnerable as few breed here, only in the tundra, but thousands winter here so hiding them serves no purpose)
rfoster commented
Yes, I was aware of most of that but this one shows up as obscured to me even though the user says they've set it as open. It has been added to 'Australasian Fishes' but looks different to other records of the species added for which I CAN see the location. I think it must have been inadvertently obscured by the observer. The over-ride I was referring to was bypassing the project's geo-reference based harvesting protocol to add it to the project manually, since the location is known to fall within the project area.
cmcheatle commented
She cant do that. It is more likely she has not granted permission for project admins to see obscured locations. If the species is auto obscured, users can not change that in their records. Of course to the submitter it always looks open as locations of your own sightings are not obscured. No point hiding that, you know where it was. Users set this permission under their account settings. It has been too long since i created my account so i do not remember the default setting for new accounts.
taniacann suggested an ID
Improving
markmcg suggested an ID
rfoster suggested an ID
Improving
Deja vu.... we saw this one a few weeks ago, didn't we?
Please Login or Register to comment.
Please Login or Register to suggest an identification.