21 ms·

First Known Photographs of Living Specimens

123 points by Morizero 1y ago

Nition 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - Nition 1y 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 1y ago
        [deleted]
- mattigames 1y 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 1y ago
    The head is on the far left, drinking from the saucer.
  - msephton 1y ago
    So only "good" first photos should count?
    - mattigames 1y ago
      Non-smudged photos yeah, otherwise you could say any smudge of colors is any animal you claim.
      - LoganDark 1y ago
        It's Bigfoot!
        mattigames 1y ago
        Now I'm wondering what was the first viral fake photo of big foot
      - msephton 1y 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 1y ago
madpen 1y ago
Within the context of iNaturalist. Anyhow, cheers to the iNaturalist team, the work they do and their Seek app. It’s one of the only apps I recommend friends to give to their children to explore, appreciate, and learn about the natural world around them. I just hope they stay relevant in the ChatGPT world. TBH I often use a combination of the two when trying to ID something out in the wild, and ChatGPT many times does a better job.
- Helmut10001 1y ago
  > Within the context of iNaturalist. No, he/she meas everywhere: > 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.
  - Nition 1y ago
    No, it's confusing but as far as I can tell what they're saying there is that if a species was ever photographed anywhere before, outside of iNaturalist, that species can't be part of the project at all. It's a page for people on iNaturalist who have captured the first known photo of a species.
    - devb 1y ago
      > but as far as I can tell Did you actually look at the details? It's literally in rule #1: > 1 . Any observations you add must be the first photograph(s) of that species anywhere. If an observation is the first one for that species to be uploaded to iNat, but other photos of that species from an earlier point in time already exist anywhere elsewhere online/in print, then that observation should not be added to the project. This is the biggest source of observations that I have to remove from the project. So your observation must be both the first photograph of that species on iNat and also the first anywhere.
      - Nition 1y ago
        I did, but isn't that rule saying exactly the same thing as I said above, just in different words?
Tewboo 1y ago
Absolutely fascinating to see the earliest images of living organisms. Capturing life in such a way was a groundbreaking moment in science.
shabadoo75 1y ago
I know the guy that created that project, he's also published a paper on how important and valuable it's been for species monitoring and conservation https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10841-021-00350-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10841-021-00350-7
bobsmooth 1y ago
No photos of humans interestingly.
- paulluuk 1y ago
  They're not exactly "relatively uncommon or cryptic"
  - a3w 1y ago
    > This project is designed to showcase the first known photographs of living specimens of any species. Where does it say they need to be rare?
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      Humans have been photographed before and are therefore out of scope.
      - gertlex 1y ago
        They're more specifically out of scope because the first person to ever photograph+publish a picture of a human (which would fit the upload rules as I read it), is long since deceased ;) (I'm sure someone on here could point us to which photo this would be, though!)
        alnwlsn 1y ago
        It seems to be this one taken by Louis Daguerre in 1838: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulevard_du_Temple_(photograph) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulevard_du_Temple_(photograp...
    - paulluuk 1y ago
      From the page linked: > First photographic records of already described (but obviously relatively uncommon or cryptic) species
rex_lupi 1y ago
It's sad that most of the commenters here did not care to read the "About" section of the project: >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... 2) First photographic records of already described (but obviously relatively uncommon or cryptic) species... >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). >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. It clearly states the photograph has to be the first photograph someone ever taken of the species which they have published(journal/news/book etc.) or publicly shared. Also, historical pictures are welcome, as long as you took the picture. I have seen scanned images uploaded to the project dating back to the 1960s.
- almostnormal 1y ago
  Calling it "oldest" instead of "first known" would have avoided most of the confusion.
  - culi 1y ago
    I'm not sure if the HN article title was changed but the iNaturalist title of the Project is "First Known Photographs of Living Specimens"
4ugSWklu 1y ago
I hope that someone gets a photo of Crump’s Mouse one day.
a3w 1y ago
Is homo sapiens in there?
- culi 1y ago
  On iNaturalist, a Homo sapiens species would automatically be marked as "casual" meaning its not eligible to be a "research-grade" observation Anyhow species that were first photographed outside of iNaturalist would not be eligible for this project. It is possible however to upload an observation that happened many years ago (even before iNaturalist existed)
  - rex_lupi 1y ago
    >Anyhow species that were first photographed outside of iNaturalist would not be eligible... To clarify, it would be eligible if the photograph has not been published (i.e. made available publicly outside of iNat) and you own the license. If you had taken the first-known pics of an animal a few decades ago, and posted them on Facebook earlier, you can still add them to this project, as they fulfill all the technical requirements.
nxpnsv 1y ago
That's so cool, I live close to a bug only observed once!

123 points by Morizero 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - Nition 1y 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 1y ago
        [deleted]
mattigames 1y 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 1y ago
  The head is on the far left, drinking from the saucer.
- msephton 1y ago
  So only "good" first photos should count?
  - mattigames 1y ago
    Non-smudged photos yeah, otherwise you could say any smudge of colors is any animal you claim.
    - LoganDark 1y ago
      It's Bigfoot!
      - mattigames 1y ago
        Now I'm wondering what was the first viral fake photo of big foot
    - msephton 1y 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 1y ago

madpen 1y ago

Within the context of iNaturalist. Anyhow, cheers to the iNaturalist team, the work they do and their Seek app. It’s one of the only apps I recommend friends to give to their children to explore, appreciate, and learn about the natural world around them. I just hope they stay relevant in the ChatGPT world. TBH I often use a combination of the two when trying to ID something out in the wild, and ChatGPT many times does a better job.

Helmut10001 1y ago
> Within the context of iNaturalist. No, he/she meas everywhere: > 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.
- Nition 1y ago
  No, it's confusing but as far as I can tell what they're saying there is that if a species was ever photographed anywhere before, outside of iNaturalist, that species can't be part of the project at all. It's a page for people on iNaturalist who have captured the first known photo of a species.
  - devb 1y ago
    > but as far as I can tell Did you actually look at the details? It's literally in rule #1: > 1 . Any observations you add must be the first photograph(s) of that species anywhere. If an observation is the first one for that species to be uploaded to iNat, but other photos of that species from an earlier point in time already exist anywhere elsewhere online/in print, then that observation should not be added to the project. This is the biggest source of observations that I have to remove from the project. So your observation must be both the first photograph of that species on iNat and also the first anywhere.
    - Nition 1y ago
      I did, but isn't that rule saying exactly the same thing as I said above, just in different words?

Tewboo 1y ago

Absolutely fascinating to see the earliest images of living organisms. Capturing life in such a way was a groundbreaking moment in science.

shabadoo75 1y ago

I know the guy that created that project, he's also published a paper on how important and valuable it's been for species monitoring and conservation https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10841-021-00350-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10841-021-00350-7

bobsmooth 1y ago

No photos of humans interestingly.

paulluuk 1y ago
They're not exactly "relatively uncommon or cryptic"
- a3w 1y ago
  > This project is designed to showcase the first known photographs of living specimens of any species. Where does it say they need to be rare?
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    Humans have been photographed before and are therefore out of scope.
    - gertlex 1y ago
      They're more specifically out of scope because the first person to ever photograph+publish a picture of a human (which would fit the upload rules as I read it), is long since deceased ;) (I'm sure someone on here could point us to which photo this would be, though!)
      - alnwlsn 1y ago
        It seems to be this one taken by Louis Daguerre in 1838: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulevard_du_Temple_(photograph) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulevard_du_Temple_(photograp...
  - paulluuk 1y ago
    From the page linked: > First photographic records of already described (but obviously relatively uncommon or cryptic) species

rex_lupi 1y ago

It's sad that most of the commenters here did not care to read the "About" section of the project: >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... 2) First photographic records of already described (but obviously relatively uncommon or cryptic) species... >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). >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. It clearly states the photograph has to be the first photograph someone ever taken of the species which they have published(journal/news/book etc.) or publicly shared. Also, historical pictures are welcome, as long as you took the picture. I have seen scanned images uploaded to the project dating back to the 1960s.

almostnormal 1y ago
Calling it "oldest" instead of "first known" would have avoided most of the confusion.
- culi 1y ago
  I'm not sure if the HN article title was changed but the iNaturalist title of the Project is "First Known Photographs of Living Specimens"

4ugSWklu 1y ago

I hope that someone gets a photo of Crump’s Mouse one day.

a3w 1y ago

Is homo sapiens in there?

culi 1y ago
On iNaturalist, a Homo sapiens species would automatically be marked as "casual" meaning its not eligible to be a "research-grade" observation Anyhow species that were first photographed outside of iNaturalist would not be eligible for this project. It is possible however to upload an observation that happened many years ago (even before iNaturalist existed)
- rex_lupi 1y ago
  >Anyhow species that were first photographed outside of iNaturalist would not be eligible... To clarify, it would be eligible if the photograph has not been published (i.e. made available publicly outside of iNat) and you own the license. If you had taken the first-known pics of an animal a few decades ago, and posted them on Facebook earlier, you can still add them to this project, as they fulfill all the technical requirements.

nxpnsv 1y ago

That's so cool, I live close to a bug only observed once!