Good evening . Thanks for your sighting. The media from your sighting does not display all the necessary features required for verification. To help us verify this sighting, please provides your own information in the notes that gives us all confidence you have confirmed the correct identification. Or if possible, please provide additional photographs showing key characteristics, including: the habit of this whole plant.
I’ve checked my photos and there is not another photo of this specimen. I have lots of white cedar at KV so I felt confident of the identification but I realise that you can’t take my word for it. I could either delete this sighting or we leave it unidentified. Apologies.
Yes we can take your word for it so long as your word is in writing here and you have reasoning as you have just written here (or have noted written evidences here).
So i confirm this identification.
In the future, when you have only a single photograph and have reasons based confidence in the identification, please just make sure you have those reasons for confidence in writing.
What we can't do is take you lack of notes' reasons' words with bare identifications and then speculate to read your mind trying guess whether your identification has: • your own reasoned confident or • you have only tentatively identified or • you have only speculatively guessed an identification (cliche: 'a toss up' identification).
Obviously i write above, in this here sighting's evidence context, that this single photograph does look like Melia azedarach , and in this region and in this Qld location this species does occur, with only a few other alien introduced from overseas trees' species which look like it, mostly in or near gardens. (They similar foliage aliens not much sighted in the bush).
I hope my writing here makes sense . Let me know if not in part or whole.
In summary to clarify:
this plant's real word context has much importance for the confirmation of the identification, —systematically—, of course together with this plant's appearance in the photograoh(s) and;
you, the author of this individual sighting, your wholistic thinking context, of the information you have provided, including your sighting description details, your notes; and as i know a little of your background as context for my receiving your information, from our previous discussions, hence i know a little of your ways of systematic reasoning identifications.
Thank you for your considered remarks. In the future I will endeavour to include appropriate features for identification even if I’m confident of the identification.
Yeah. Good morning! And, please include written notes in to the NatureMapr sighting record, of your sighting time actual in the field relevant thoughts.
Systematic notes have interest (not boring). And as your NatureMapr time permits, please include your relevant thoughts (not holding thoughts back).
Evidences–based and first hand experiences based inferences and opinions –great! Un-evidenced, made–up, guessed, assumed, or hyped up, opinions waste every bodies' time. Thanks to us all here in NatureMapr there's very few, a tiny minority, of these here (cf. bad, large minority proportion of baseless IDs and records in iNat). Boldly i am emphasising, in this our nature loving systematic life–work, none of us can fall into guessing nor assuming nor hyping.