The general problem with these magic AI image matching services is their assumption of infallibility - they don't tell you which criteria they use and allow a human to tell them which ones are correct and which should be discounted.

For example, Wolfram's answer to one image (containing a hoverfly) is that it's an "Africanized bee" - despite that only existing in South America and southern US, (not to mention the image quite clearly being a fly and not a bee).

Google's answer for the same image is a Short-tailed Blue, which at least gets the correct family of the butterfly, if not the right genus (it's actually a Holly Blue).

(Side-note: If I didn't know they were both wrong, the fact that the Short-tailed Blue isn't found on the American content would be evidence that one of them was incorrect.)

Neither Wolfram nor Google gave any hint of recognising more than one thing in the image. Neither of them get me closer to identifying the pink-flowered bush the two insects are on.

Have you tried crowd-sourcing the ids on insect|bird forums etc?

On Monday I photographed over a dozen different species; I need a more scalable solution than uploading images, asking people and waiting for a reply.

My ideal solution would be an open source Lightroom plugin that did image recognition for the basics, then asked questions for the bits it's not certain about, and worked fully offline.

What I expect I'm going to have to do instead is spend a significant amount of money on a stack of books that will then become a constant source of getting in my way.

Books are underrated, these days. Go with the books.

You tried the library?

Wolfram thinks this is a Lycopodium obscurum.
Google says Juniper tree.

If I could tell them it was found in Pembrokeshire woodland they'd know those answers were wrong.

But I can't, so I'm back to guessing unknown attributes and scrolling through an endless haze of mature pink flowers trying to figure out if any of them match what this bastard thing might become.

:@

"This" being a photo that refuses to attach, which probably means there's something wrong with thumbnail generation.

Holcus lanatus

Commonly known as Yorkshire fog, (plus a bunch of other names). It certainly looks like that, and is supported by Wikipedia's assertion of "Holcus lanatus in its natural habitat is a food source for butterflies such as the speckled wood..." - because that's what the flying caterpillar sitting on it is.

Thanks. :)

I used the "Picture This" app for that.
It only gives a few free searches though.

And appears to work with a browser except the upload icon just prompts to install the mobile app. :@

So, got a picture of a bird at a place that had an list of names on a board - which, excluding the ones I knew, means it's almost certainly one of seven.

Wolfram's Image thing said wheatear, which is a candidate and a regular image search for wheatear agrees (and matches closer than any of the other six, despite mostly all being chats), as does Wikipedia.

Hooray for simple victories! (dance)

Fun fact: wheatears are not named after cereal grain, but a corruption of the descriptive term: white arse.

Exactly how far ahead of the Coronvirus curve are you, Peter? Does your favourite pizza topping cure it?

The photo was taken three and a half years ago.

Pangolin meat? Doubtful.