iNaturalist and Re:wild partnering to rediscover hundreds of Lost Species
Species that haven’t been seen for years but may not yet be extinct are urgent conservation priorities. Rediscovering them before time runs out is crucial to directing conservation efforts and resources where they are needed most.
In June, we featured the Search for Lost Birds initiative by Re:wild, American Bird Conservancy, and BirdLife International, which used data from iNaturalist and other sources to highlight 126 bird species that haven’t been observed in the past decade.
Shortly after, the iNaturalist community made an amazing discovery: one of these lost species, the New Britain Goshawk, was unknowingly photographed and posted by @tomvierus in Papua New Guinea.
Accelerating Rediscoveries with Re:wild
We’ve been working closely with Re:wild’s Search for Lost Species program to accelerate these rediscoveries. Together, we’ve revamped the Search for Lost Species projects on iNaturalist, which are actively maintained by Re:wilds’s Lost Species Officer, Christina Biggs (@searchforlostspecies), and her team.
At first glance, there are nearly 500 lost species candidates, observed by over 750 iNaturalist observers, spread across 13 different lost species groups. The Re:wild team is actively investigating these potential rediscoveries, and also highlighting stories such as the rediscovery of the Frosted Phoenix, the "Holy Grail of New Zealand moths", on iNaturalist. By coordinating with Re:wild, we aim to better surface these finds and ensure they receive the conservation attention they deserve.
How can you help?
You can contribute to the search by reviewing observations in the Search for Lost Species projects. Here's how:
1. Taxonomic issues
Some lost species according to Re:wild’s taxonomy may be lumped with more common species on iNaturalist. For example, the bird Glaucidium castaneum from the original lost bird list is considered a subspecies of Glaucidium capense on iNaturalist, which is not lost. If you encounter species listed due to taxonomic discrepancies, please mention @searchforlostspecies and suggest their removal.
2. Misidentifications
If you have expertise in any of the species groups and suspect that an observation of a lost species candidate is misidentified, please add a disagreeing ID and explain why.
3. True rediscoveries
If you've ruled out taxonomic issues and misidentifications and believe an observation represents a genuine rediscovery, leave a comment explaining your reasoning. Mention @searchforlostspecies and suggest they add it to the Rediscovered Lost Species project.
Supporting Biodiversity Through iNaturalist
We’re excited to collaborate with organizations like Re:wild, who are leveraging iNaturalist to fulfill their mission of protecting and restoring biodiversity. Together, we can make a difference in rediscovering species that the world thought were lost forever.
Comments
Cool!
Neat! Great to see more partnerships between global conservation orgs and iNat.
This is great. Re-finding these lost species is such an important first step for their conservation.
There is such genuine excitement in these discoveries. I'm so grateful that those that find these lost species share them on iNaturalist with the entire community!
This is great!!
@searchforlostspecies Cool project! Looks like the full list available on your website needs an update. I took a quick look and immediate saw four species that shouldn't be on it. Those four are not in the iNat project, so looks like you already know about them.
@searchforlostspecies, Anniella alexanderae is not an extirpated/extinct species. It is a species that has been newly (relative) described and is currently petitioned for legal listing to the State of California and has been detected and reported in recent years, including 2024. There's iNat detections from 2024, so its not clear why this species is on the list.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?project_id=219424&taxon_id=371959&place_id=any&verifiable=any
Sincerely,
Brian
@searchforlostspecies Love the idea, this kind of thing can help focus local initiatives, community engagement and such. However, already - perhaps as pulling some core data from IUCN, there's a massive bias towards vertebrates, even specifically towards herps. Many of those of course need some attention, especially several amphibians, but it's a poor reflection of biodiversity. More widely though, as an invert guy, i'm continually dismayed by neglect for conservation initiatives of the 'vast majority' of lifeforms. However, here, i'm amused that for the one spider which popped up on this 'lost list' was a tarantula spider Cardiopelma mascatum. Pretty sure i was standing next to the guy who shared the first photo of them - since submitted to iNat several years ago. Supporting 'rediscovery' is one thing, but a photo of a 'rediscovery' is of limited value. [Edit as others have stated, you seem to have a cutoff start date. I could add my photos of those same spiders from 2010, but it then wouldn't be picked up by this initiative - i'd guess many other users have some useful 'old photos' of such things]. I'd love to see iNat and contributors then going the step further to actively support any of these re'discovered' ones being further studied, so supporting updating of science, especially as something done together with 'citizens initiatives, most importantly the local communities. "Observing" something is only the start.
Very cool collaboration! Makes a ton of sense as well given the overlap in interests and opportunities.
Awesome! Very happy to see this partnership.
What a wonderful project! I imagine it's already there and I may have just missed it when I looked through the list of insects but if it isn't there would you consider adding Argynnis hyperbius inconstans: https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/taxa/323771-Argynnis-hyperbius-inconstans ?
More info here: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/-/media/OEH/Corporate-Site/Documents/Animals-and-plants/Threatened-species/saving-our-species-australian-fritillary-brochure-170421.pdf
The Tongan Ground Skink is probably not extinct either
Great stuff, I made a list with a somewhat similar goal. It shows the latest observation per taxa per country with GBIF data: https://www.gbif-last-observation.com/
Why setting the start date? Observations won't appear if they were shot earlier, I have an ant that was last seen in 80s, but it's not in the project and I don't know if it's the date or list is not full.
not a single fungi observation? that's a shame.
While not exactly the same, I'd be very interested to see "lost" fungi added to the list. There are a few small efforts made for fungi, but it is truly a neglected area of study yet one that could benefit hugely from more identifiers. See the fungal red list, https://redlist.info/iucn/species_list/, FunDIS rare fungi surveys https://www.fundis.org/rare-fungi-challenges, Lost and Found Fungi project https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/lost-and-found-fungi for starting points.
Seeing the comments here, it would be great if there could be a community-led way to make suggestions and add things to the list! Invertebrate representation would be highly beneficial.
Not documented for a decade? Are you serious? I think i have at least 2 species a year that have not been documented for 80/90 years. But for a decade... i probably have one every week...
Hey @then we could do this with Nasa ferox, N. hastata and N. solaria maybe.
Awesome!!! I have been following rewild for a while now, and to this collaboration is truly amazing!
@rafaelacuna I have told that iNAT at the time the publication came out, they did not respond. But we could add the data to this project of course. But overall I have the feeling people only care for animals. The whole text above does not mention plants at all. Plant blindness is real, even among conservationists!
@rafaelacuna there is no Nasa species in the list of lost species on the project page. How does the "IUCN team" come up with the list of taxa? I guess it is purely based on valid IUCN thread status assessments and existing red lists, hence for the majority of (plant) taxa, there will be no record due the the lack of such an assessment. These assessments are usually made only in the context of taxonomic revisions etc. Many if not most "lost" taxa are usually not part of these generally rather scarce contributions (taxonomy is a dying discipline). So this is anything but exhaustive. E.g. my group of plants (Loasaceae) are relatively well treated in terms of alpha taxonomy and most of the taxa have only recently been descibed or revised. Still, the "lost" taxa lack an IUCN threat status. We know of these taxa and could add them to the list, but it seems this it not part of the plan?
This gives me chills.
@then my animal species is listed as threatened in IUCN, but not on the list, so it's confusing on how they came up with those lists.
@then I agree with you, every point, however if plant scientists don't raise their voices this bias towards vertebrates will likely continue. I wonder if contacting re:wild would make sense or would be just a waste of time.
Hi, Christina Biggs, manager of the Search for Lost Species program, here. I appreciate all the comments, it's certainly a complicated subject. @btree @then @rafaelacuna could you please email me cbiggs@rewild.org and maybe we could schedule a time to talk. Anyone else who would like more information or their questions answered are also always welcome to reach out!
thanks for reaching out @searchforlostspecies Christina Biggs I will discuss this with @then and then get back at you with a more elaborate email message.
@marina_gorbunova a threatened species is rarely lost (in the sense of not documented for 10 years or more). Lost species are often critically endangered (possibly extinct) data deficient or not assessed by the IUCN.
They don't do enough searching before they say a species is extinct. Like with the Samoan Moorhen Gallinula Pacifica and thee Tachygia microlepis of Tonga I feel they could still be around especially the Tachygia. Better to change it to data deficient.
Add a Comment