Frequently Asked Questions

      The Field Journals FAQ provides answers to some common questions regarding the specimens and photography found here. You can quickly jump to an answer by clicking on a question in the index (below). Alternately, you skip over the index of questions and just start reading from the beginning.

F. A. Q. Index

• Are your wildlife identifications 100% positive?
• I found a photograph online of a specimen similar to yours, but it is identified differently. What gives?
• I think you're wrong about a species or genus for a particular specimen. How can I notify you?

• What kinds of photographs can I find on Field Journals?
• Are your photographs edited in any way?

F. A. Q. Answers

Are your wildlife identifications 100% positive?

      Literally dozens of hours after each hike are invested in classifying the trees, plants, animals, insects, and terrain seen here on Field Journals. Although I hold myself to a high standard, it's next to impossible to guarantee that every life form and geological specimen is exactly matched to its corresponding scientific name. Tentative identifications will usually be qualified with "probably", "likely" or "perhaps".

      The difficulty lies in the rich biodiversity of our planet. For example, we are all familiar with oak trees (of the genus Quercus), but we rarely give thought to the fact that there are over 400 different species that abound world-wide. In most regions of the United States there are at least a few instances in which you can find different species of an organism from a single genus living side-by-side. Whether you're talking about plants, animals, or otherwise, these species sometimes look so similar that they are difficult even for trained scientists to distinguish from each other.  Whenever you see "sp." following a genus (in the form of  'Aster sp.'), this indicates that I was able to identify the specimen's genus, but was too unsure of the exact species to make a definite pronouncement.  This is a standard means of abbreviating scientific, or binomial, names.

      In other cases, many plants and animals which may not even be closely-related nonetheless share remarkably similar appearances. For instance, whereas most wolves are from the genus Canis, the same rule cannot be applied to land slugs. All land slugs evolved from snails that once had shells, but this process occurred at many different times throughout prehistory, giving rise to a staggering array of classifications. In spite of their apparent similarity, many land slugs found in a single region may be only distant cousins in an evolutionary sense.

      In exceptional cases, creatures that look very similar to each other may not be half as related as they seem. Puffball mushrooms and spherical slime molds are notorious look-alikes that can sometimes be found growing in much the same conditions as one another. But the strange slime mold is neither a fungus or a plant. It's not an animal, either! Slime molds are an entirely different form of life altogether (known as Eukaryotes), even though they appear to be stalk-less mushrooms, just like puffballs.

   ↑  Return to index

I found a photograph online of a specimen similar to yours, but it is identified differently.  What gives?

      It's always best to refer to a thorough field guide when identifying plants and animals.  The Internet is cluttered with snapshots that are poorly identified by well-meaning individuals that don't do their homework. These incorrect identifications vary widely in their degree of error. Sometimes, individuals properly peg the genus but fail to assign the correct species. In other instances, errors may be much more drastic and misleading.

      Berry plants, of which there are literally thousands of varieties, represent just one example of specimens that have been poorly identified all over the Web. Why? Well, people have an overwhelming tendency to identify berry plants by their berries... which almost always works against efforts at proper identification. Very unrelated berry plants may produce fruits that look almost identical at certain times of year. Proper identification in such cases relies upon utilizing other clues: the shape and color of the leaves, the habitat in which the plant was found, the overall size and shape of the plant, the time of year during which it was discovered, as well as the color and habits of its flowers.

     For this same reason, however, sometimes both I and the Internet author in question are actually both correct... we are simply referring to two verifiably different specimens that merely appear to be the same in our photographs.

     That being said, it's always possible (though improbable) that I'm the one that's in error. If you believe this to be the case, click here for more information.

   ↑  Return to index

I think you're wrong about a species or genus for a particular specimen. How can I notify you?

     If you see a specimen in one of my galleries that you believe I've incorrectly identified, or if you can identify a specimen which I've left unlabelled, then you can feel free to drop me a line. Just visit the Contact page of Field Journals. And no, sadly there aren't any cash or prizes in store for you should you be correct.

   ↑  Return to index

What kinds of photos can I find on Field Journals?

      Photography found here on Field Journals is aimed at providing viewers with a well-rounded overview of each featured location. You'll see plenty of aesthetically-pleasing images of the landscape, but my focus with Field Journals is much more broad. Hikers will find photographs that portray the difficulty of trails, examples of trail markers, and the capacity of trail parking lots. Those interested in plant and animal life will find a good deal of specimens to browse, many of which I have gone to great length to painstakingly identify right down to the genus and species classifications.

      Field Journals emphasizes a balance between artistic appeal and usefulness. Those that are interested in beautiful photography will find plenty, but hikers and campers will also find my photography quite useful for developing an idea of what they'll find during their own adventures.

   ↑  Return to index

Are your photographs edited in any way?

      Many of the images seen here are 'edited', though it's important to understand exactly what that means in this context. In no way do I alter the contents of these images. I do develop them digitally, which affords me a certain degree of control over color balances, brightness, and contrast. This allows restoration or revitalization of some of the natural colors that are lost under certain light conditions. After all, many of these excursions are long, rough, and neither fun nor safe to complete in the dark. It's impossible to focus on a single subject for very long.

      Occasionally, I'll run more extensive processing in an effort to enhance the artistic appeal of some photographs, remaining faithful to the direction in which I feel Nature was already moving (translation: I sometimes invoke a dash of artistic license). Again, you'll find that my modifications aren't destructive to the original contents of the photograph.

   ↑  Return to index

Home | About Field Journals | Photo Galleries | F. A. Q. | Links | Contact

---