[HN Gopher] Candide - Identify Plants with a Photo
___________________________________________________________________
Candide - Identify Plants with a Photo
Author : sails
Score : 179 points
Date : 2021-07-27 09:50 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (candidegardening.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (candidegardening.com)
| kurishutofu wrote:
| The augmented reality function that seems to allow you to label
| your plants seems intriguing. I wanted to try this over
| PicturesThis (I don't like how PictureThis makes it look you need
| their subscription for the app to work) But it seems the app is
| not available in my region maybe because of GDPR, I guess?
| [deleted]
| rollulus wrote:
| How does this compare to PlantSnap and pl@ntNet?
| Tomte wrote:
| Or Seek (iNaturalist)
| sails wrote:
| I haven't used either, but in the UK this works incredibly
| well.
| Someone wrote:
| Or PictureThis (https://www.picturethisai.com/)?
| nmstoker wrote:
| Or Google Lens? I've only tried Lens on various office plants
| (so not in the wild) but it was very effective for those
| rosetremiere wrote:
| Or seek! https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/seek_app
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| This is one of the best apps to install on your kids'
| phones. Makes them go outside and get interested in their
| surroundings.
| keithnz wrote:
| my partner used one called PictureThis and it identified most
| of all the plants around our property here in New Zealand ( mix
| of natives and introduced), it got ones that were a complete
| mystery to us.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| I used to use PictureThis until they started requiring a
| login in order to use it. Then I switched to LeafSnap, which
| works great.
| cube2222 wrote:
| At least for me on iOS it doesn't require a login.
|
| I too confirm that PictureThis works great.
| Liquid_Fire wrote:
| For me (Android) PictureThis requires a login, and limits
| you to 1 identification per day, unless you pay for a
| monthly subscription. It didn't use to in the past.
|
| However, the linked app (Candide) also seems to require a
| login, so I'm sure it's just a matter of time before they
| put limits on free accounts.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I have it, and they don't require a login. I use it several
| times a week.
|
| My main complaint about it, is that it's a battery hog; but
| it works well.
| acheron wrote:
| I started using PictureThis recently and do not need a
| login or anything. Works pretty well at least in my yard
| and nearby parks.
| cormacrelf wrote:
| This is one of those markets where even ignoring open
| source/etc you never need to pay for it, because at the
| moment there is a new plant recognition app once a
| fortnight with a free trial. And none of them have any real
| lock-in because they're basically stateless.
| Jolter wrote:
| So, what's the monetization strategy? What data am I giving up if
| I use this app, and how will they use it?
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I have an app on my iPhone that works pretty well (PictureThis).
| Probably does about the same thing as this.
|
| I noticed that the following clause in their Ts & Cs:
|
| _> You grant us an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide and
| royalty-free right and license to use your Content for the
| purposes of providing, promoting, developing and trying to
| improve the Candide Platform and our other services, including
| new services that we may provide in the future. We will not sell
| your Content to any third party_
|
| does not have punctuation after the last sentence.
|
| I'm not a Grammar Nazi[0], but that tells me that the sentence
| was changed at the last minute.
|
| [0] http://queenofwands.net/d/20031003.html
| hicksyfern wrote:
| I don't work at Candide any more but I was CTO there when this
| was written. I can assure you you're reading too much into it!
|
| Candide is very well set up to protect users' private data, and
| has a great set of engineers and engineering practices in place
| ensuring this, as well as, you know, not ever selling data to a
| third party!
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Thanks for the clarification. I know that lawyers spend a lot
| of time revising these types of sentences; usually with an
| eye towards exit plans.
|
| I appreciate the authoritative response.
| kazinator wrote:
| Google's camera app does this in the Lens mode.
|
| I snapped picture of the example picture; it came up with Swiss
| Cheese Plant.
|
| Don't know how good it is. I've used it maybe seven or eight
| times in the past for identifying plants; it worked every time.
|
| Most recently, over just this past weekend, it identified an Elm
| tree from a shot a branch.
| amarant wrote:
| Google lens can already do this. It identifies other things too,
| which is nice. And from my very limited testing lens is more
| accurate.
|
| I guess this is nice for the "cancel Google" crowd though...
| SeanFerree wrote:
| This is an excellent resource!
| antirez wrote:
| Try Plantnet, it's free and is a research project. Works really
| well.
|
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.plantnet&h...
| a9h74j wrote:
| Not precisely on topic, but two professors at U.C. Berkely are
| involved in helping people identify edible plants in urban
| settings, particularly Oakland. This excellent piece makes
| mention of a phone app they are using in conjunction.
|
| https://phys.org/news/2014-11-foragers-bounty-edibles-urban-...
| jpxw wrote:
| My immediate thought is that this could be quite dangerous if
| used by inexperienced foragers. It's very easy as a human to
| misidentify poison hemlock as cow's parsley, for example, which
| is a lethal mistake.
|
| It's a very cool project though, of course.
| jsmorph wrote:
| https://www.inaturalist.org/ also does this kind of thing.
| iNaturalist works well for lots of different organisms.
| ahhhndi wrote:
| German research project doing same for free:
| https://floraincognita.com/?noredirect=en_US
| _Microft wrote:
| _Flora Incognita_ is great. Very recommended!
| karencarits wrote:
| There is also a free service trained on Norwegian plants:
| https://orakel.artsdatabanken.no/
|
| The final step in the user guide is (roughly translated):
|
| > Now it's your turn to think! A high match percentage is no
| guarantee that the result is correct. Artsorakelet tries to match
| your pictures to pictures it has seen previously, but many
| species have no, few, or bad pictures! It has not been trained on
| domestic animals, garden flowers or humans, or pictures with
| restricted access, such as images of large predators
| injidup wrote:
| Awesome. It identified my fully grown pepper (capsicum ) plants
| as spinach. What could go wrong?
| chefandy wrote:
| At least it didn't identify it as "not hot dog."
|
| I wonder how much funding these guys have, and how much of it I
| could get by intentionally non-fatally poisoning myself with a
| misidentified plant? How much indemnity can the whole _" WHILE
| WE ENDEAVOUR TO ENSURE THAT THE INFORMATION ON THE CANDIDE
| PLATFORM ARE CORRECT, WE DO NOT WARRANT THE ACCURACY AND
| COMPLETENESS [...]"_ thing actually provide?
| monkeynotes wrote:
| Google lens does a pretty good job of identifying plants, along
| with everything else. I use it a lot in our garden and a majority
| of the time it correctly identifies.
| tgtweak wrote:
| There is really very little need for 3rd party apps on this.
| I've yet to stump lens on any Fauna or Flora in my neck of the
| woods. I suspect it is location aware, which gives it a pretty
| big edge in filtering out duplicates.
| raffraffraff wrote:
| Interesting, I can't use Lens. Installed it, but it just says
| "Thank you for updating. Lens will be available soon"
| trts wrote:
| My success rate with Google Lens is about 80-90%, sometimes
| doing additional research to confirm between similar results.
|
| With a couple different dedicated apps I had zero success.
| londons_explore wrote:
| How does this perform Vs Google lens?
| iliesaya wrote:
| https://plantnet.org/en/
| riffraff wrote:
| I have been using plantnet for a few years and have been pretty
| happy with it. The ability to contribute+validate your
| identification is great.
|
| It does fail sometimes but it's pretty good, and the UI has
| improved in recent releases.
| xattt wrote:
| I have to agree on PlantNet. It is good enough to come up
| with a general name of a plant (ragwort), that you can then
| look up in a local plant guidebook to find out the specific
| variety (common ragwort).
|
| Hopefully, a privacy-friendly phone (ie Apple) manufacturer
| acquires them and does deep OS integration with the app.
| codingdave wrote:
| I'm not understanding why you say that being purchased by a
| phone manufacturer would be better - wouldn't the optimal
| solution be to expose any features from the OS that the app
| could need, while leaving the app developers their
| independence?
| xattt wrote:
| I'm trying to understand the business model that PlantNet
| has. Right now, it's obviously some sort of exploitative
| data harvesting - hoarding geotagged plant photos to sell
| to academic researchers, highlighting hotspots for nature
| tourism, etc.
|
| I was alluding to Apple in my comment, as they are the
| ones that have a model for their mobile devices being
| some sort of knowledge lens. They are very easily capable
| to eat the cost of maintaining the database without
| resorting to some sort of exploitative business model.
| alainv wrote:
| You didn't look very hard[1]. It's a research project
| funded by grants and donations, and as far as I can tell
| they give away their databases[2].
|
| [1]: https://plantnet.org/ [2]: http://data.plantnet-
| project.org/datamanager/_design/dataman...
| xattt wrote:
| I tried to look for an explanation of the scope of their
| project from the FAQ. Since it wasn't openly included, I
| assumed it was deliberately omitted.
| notdang wrote:
| And leaving out those that are using other platform without
| the app.
|
| Currently PlantNet works on Android, iOS and web.
| davgard wrote:
| I have tried Plantnet; it works as expected. But looking through
| the website, I might give this one a try and compare it to
| Plantnet to see who's better.
| superkuh wrote:
| I uploaded it a photo of my wild cucumber and it said it was
| passion fruit. But that's a completely legit mistake since I
| literally made the same one until it started flowering.
|
| But then I uploaded a photo of a catnip plant and it thought it
| was a milkweed plant. In fact, it's 0 of 4 for common plants in
| my garden this summer. Seems like a great idea with a marginal
| implementation.
| olivierlacan wrote:
| Understandably people are realizing that it's now much easier to
| discover what plants (and animals, and fungus, etc.) exist around
| you and whether they're special in some way.
|
| But when picking apps to accomplish that task, I suggest
| selecting for those that respect your privacy (because a lot of
| these plant observations involve GPS location), are clear about
| how the machine learning datasets are trained and what's being
| done with the data you're supplying, and lastly how these apps
| and companies are funded.
|
| PictureThis is owned by https://www.glority.com
|
| Candide appears to be a UK startup:
| https://candidegardening.com/GB/about
|
| iNaturalist and their Seek app
| (https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/seek_app) is a joint venture
| between the California Academy of Sciences and the National
| Geographic Society: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/about
|
| Moreover both iNaturalist
| (https://github.com/inaturalist/inaturalist) and Seek
| (https://github.com/inaturalist/SeekReactNative) are open source.
| The former is a Rails app, and the latter a React Native app with
| no account registration system making it safe and legal to use
| for children since all observations are stored in-device by
| default unless you chose to send them to your iNaturalist account
| to share with the community.
|
| On functionality alone it's extremely rare for Seek not to
| recognize an organism (yeah, it's not just plants) and when it
| is, I simply send the observation to iNaturalist whose network of
| naturalists both amateur and professional usually manage to
| definitively identify my observations within a few hours. Here's
| a recent example:
| https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/86844469
|
| The iNaturalist community itself is fascinating and quite
| transparent with detailed site stats
| (https://www.inaturalist.org/stats) and a clear mission statement
| ( https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/what+is+it): > iNaturalist is
| an online social network of people sharing biodiversity
| information to help each other learn about nature
|
| At a time where biodiversity is more threatened than ever, I
| welcome any tool to help folks identify and value the organisms
| around us, but if you're going to pick one, my recommendation is
| iNat & Seek.
|
| PS: I'm not affiliated to iNaturalist in any way other than as a
| happy user.
| tkahnoski wrote:
| Seek is AWESOME. We discovered it late in 2020 but it raised
| the bar for all our outdoor excursions with the kids. Even a
| routine walk around the neighborhood is an enriched experience
| as the kids careful observe their surrounding looking for a new
| bug or flower.
|
| The only downside is when we get to a new place I have to
| remind the kids we can't stop every minute to 'Seek' something
| otherwise we'll never get back home!
| fiddleleaf wrote:
| So like Google Lens but not cross-platform
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| > This item is not available in your country.
|
| I don't understand why so many apps do this?? It's a free app,
| why not let me use it?
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Thank developer laziness and GDPR
| virux wrote:
| You're one step closer to living a Better Credit Life Free From
| Debt Burden. HARRY RAYMOND CREDIT REPAIRS gives you more than
| just credit repair! With FICO Certified Professionals, Board
| Certified Credit Consultants, and Paralegals, you are in the most
| knowledgeable hands possible. Not only does HARRY RAYMOND CREDIT
| REPAIRS come with a 90-day Money Back Guarantee, but we are also
| A+ rated with the Better Business Bureau. Call, email or send us
| a Whatsapp message today to find out why! hraay25@gmail.com +1
| (213) 295-1233 Your credit is key to your future and we are
| dedicated to helping you achieve your optimal credit profile.
| neves wrote:
| How is this better than Inaturalist? https://www.inaturalist.org/
| yepthatsreality wrote:
| What ever happened to dichotomous keys?
| pvaldes wrote:
| Were replaced for something worse, more primitive and less
| accurate. Sign of the times.
| virux wrote:
| have been a client of HARRY RAYMONDS CREDIT REPAIRS for about
| 2weeks now. I have 6 negatives items, some collections
| foreclosure on my report after I contacted them concerning my
| problem they gave me a couple of days to wait and after then when
| I checked my report I couldn't believe my eyes all negatives
| entries collections including the foreclosure were completely
| cleared and I also got an amazing scoreof 810 excellent.They are
| very friendly and caring about helping me in fixing my bad credit
| and I got approved for the mortgage I applied and got my First
| Home. You can contact them on Email: hraay25@gmail.com +1
| (213)295-1233 Call or (Whatsapp) to get your credit fixed. I HOPE
| THIS HELPS OUT.
| lmilcin wrote:
| Nice concept.
|
| Unfortunately, I have tried to identify some of my plants but it
| could not identify correctly a single one. Just an endless
| procession of at best similar plants, most of the time completely
| dissimilar.
|
| I think this is another naive model that just tries to push
| entire problem to AI. That is unfortunately what I am seeing
| nowadays, very unimaginative. Just try to have fun with
| parameters of the network until you find some kind of
| configuration that seems to be working.
|
| What it would benefit from would be some kind of
| analysis/classification of basic features of the plants like
| what's the basic shape of the leaf, trunk, how things are
| connected, etc.
|
| The classification would benefit from AI (like identify where
| leaves are, where trunk is, etc.) but then that intel would be
| passed to a more classification-oriented algorithm.
|
| (disclaimer, I am not an AI developer, it just seems to me like
| pretty rational way to approach the problem)
| Tenoke wrote:
| >What it would benefit from would be some kind of
| analysis/classification of basic features of the plants like
| what's the basic shape of the leaf, trunk, how things are
| connected, etc.
|
| There's no reason to think that needs to be done separately,
| and in fact that's the kind of things that you'd expect a good
| model to find on its own.
|
| In general, we've already learned that while handcrafted
| features can help, they are often ultimately worse than learned
| ones as techniques get better.
| gbrown wrote:
| > There's no reason to think that needs to be done
| separately, and in fact that's the kind of things that you'd
| expect a good model to find on its own.
|
| Disagree - learning to classify morphological characteristics
| _is_ learning the generalizable features. Especially given
| that some plants are going to have relatively few photos,
| knowing with high confidence some diagnostic factors and GPS
| could absolutely outperform the brute force approach.
|
| This isn't about hand tuned features, it's about predicting
| the right thing.
|
| Also, the approaches aren't mutually exclusive.
| lmilcin wrote:
| AIs are useful for "fuzzy" problems, but are not very good at
| doing precise things with high reliability.
|
| Every plant has baked in restrictions on how it grows. If you
| can identify separate features of a leaf and how the leaf
| grows out of the stem you can basically look it up in a table
| and tell what kind of tree you are looking at, without need
| for guessing.
|
| On the other hand AI will develop its own classification
| method but one that has unknown faults in it.
|
| Maybe it has learned to look at the lighting direction
| because half of the data set was non-suculents with light
| from the left and half was succulents with light from the
| right, because it came from a different facility?
|
| Or maybe different cameras were used to photograph different
| types of plants?
|
| So now rather than looking at the leaves it uses light
| direction or photo grain to tell if it is succulent or not?
|
| Face the reality, you are wrong.
|
| The above algorithm returns completely nonsensical results
| for my searches, plants that have completely different
| structure and coloration and nobody would ever mistake them.
|
| It relies at you looking at the suggested solution, and then,
| Hey!, here you have five more, maybe your plant is somewhere
| on the list?
|
| This is only marginally useful but could have been so much
| better if it tried to identify structure of the plant.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| Would it be possible to train the model to identify the
| features and then just have it run those through a trie of
| plant classifications? Trying to bake classifications into
| the model does seem silly but you still need an element of
| computer vision if you want to do this.
| lmilcin wrote:
| That's exactly what I thought up without having any
| experience in the area.
|
| So, basically do what a person would do -- identify
| simple features visually and then consult the book to go
| through decision tree to figure out what you are looking
| at based on these features.
|
| As you go through decision tree, you keep excluding more
| and more possibilities until you are left with only one
| match.
|
| You would never mistake oak with a cactus because there
| are so many occasions on this decision tree to go one or
| the other way that you would have to make multiple
| mistakes.
|
| But that's exactly what the algorithm seems to be doing
| -- mistaking plants that are very far away from each
| other when it comes to their build.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| That's the same problem you might have with a self
| driving car driven by an ML algorithm: is that an open
| lane or someone wearing a black outfit with white
| stripes?
| Fiahil wrote:
| To be honest, nothing works better than Plantnet for
| identifying plants. They do the pre-selection where you choose
| wich organ you're looking at (trunk, leaf, flower, fruit, ...).
| CTOSian wrote:
| Plantnet is a gem, they don't even want you to
| "register"/"connect with FB/Google" for "tracking" purposes
| ornornor wrote:
| I think it's a research project and not a commercial VC-
| money-burning startup. I highly recommend PlantNet as well.
| phito wrote:
| Right. This kind of thing is only going to work on very common
| plants that are easy to ID. I am very into carnivorous plants
| and even us experts sometimes have trouble identifying plants,
| often you need very specific morphological details to ID
| species that a phone picture will never be able to catch.
|
| IMO this will just lead people to wrongly ID their plants more
| often than not, and that's a really bad thing.
| jvvw wrote:
| I've used PictureThis a great deal to identify both wild and
| garden flowers. I've found it really good for the 95% most
| common plants and also for getting you in the right ballpark
| so you can then look things up more easily in a field guide.
| I've just accepted that there are some species that it can't
| distinguish between - often you need to know exactly the
| right feature to look at of the plant to differentiate
| species. It'd be useful though if it flagged this a bit
| better. Umbellifers are a classic example. It gets them
| correct more often than not, but I think it'd be good for it
| to indicate that uncertainty better.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| The iNaturalist app does a spectacular job at identifying
| plants (and insects, fish, birds...), even disambiguating
| based on your location
|
| You label geotagged images with the AIs suggestion if you
| agree with it and then other users can either confirm or
| suggest a different / more specific species.
| phito wrote:
| You got me curious, so I tried that app, and I'm getting
| "Unknown species" for every single one of my plants... I
| guess no identification is better than bad identification.
| 7952 wrote:
| Are they garden plants?
| phito wrote:
| No, they're carnivorous plants grown in greenhouse.
| ravila4 wrote:
| You need to click on the "Unknown Species" box in order
| to get a list of suggestions. Probably not the most
| intuitive, but it avoids auto-assigning IDs without prior
| review.
| lmilcin wrote:
| It is an important feature. For plants, users will
| immediately see that the answer is wrong but for many
| other things (identifying suspects automatically) it
| might not be as obvious.
|
| As a bonus if the algorithm can tell it can't identify
| correctly you can use this feedback to teach the
| algorithm.
| bottled_poe wrote:
| A great example of this is the Akinator app. The
| developers built up a database of answers by getting the
| users to fill in the missing data, which produced more
| accurate results and subsequently attracted more users.
| That feedback loop for apps like this seems like a very
| effective model. What I find interesting about this is
| that the value of the product, from a business
| perspective, comes from the success of the software in
| enabling that feedback loop, while from the user's
| perspective, the value is in the data. But the data is
| emergent from the feedback algorithm.
| abeppu wrote:
| Is it perhaps also a difference in intended use? If
| iNaturalist is for wildlife and uses location heavily, eg
| identifying tropical houseplants indoors in a different
| region might not work.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| The GPS helps with a "seen nearby" weight, but it
| shouldn't exclude anything. Could be a factor of
| photography, with some plants it's easier to get a nice
| canonical leaf shape than others. Taking a wide angle of
| a potted plant such that the whole plant is in frame
| might not provide enough detail, so there's a learning
| curve in knowing how to photography for the algorithms
| benefit, kind of like learning how to phrase search
| queries for better Google results
| phito wrote:
| Could be, I just set location data on it with the
| original location of the plants, but it still cannot ID
| them. Granted, they are not very common species.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Perhaps they are unknown species! Hah, well, sorry my
| recommendation didn't come through, I can imagine it
| performs better on common plants everyone takes pictures
| of, which is what I'm identifying when I walk around
| town.
|
| Still, if you post the plants under a more general
| species other users can identify it mentally, adding to
| the data set.
| _Microft wrote:
| Flora Incognita, a free plant identification app for Android
| and iOS, developed by a German university, does that.
|
| You choose a category first, like "tree", "flower", "grass" or
| "fern" and it will guide you through the process, trying to
| identify the plant with as few photos as necessary. Common ones
| it will identify from a single image, for others, it will e.g.
| prompt to take a close-up photo of the bark, bloom or the
| complete plant in its environment. From what I understand, they
| are aiming for accuracy of the identification and will provide
| a description of possibly matching plants if there is still
| ambiguity. Very recommended!
|
| Edit: here is a link if it sounds interesting:
| https://floraincognita.com
| leo_bloom wrote:
| Funny enough, I only get a 403 Forbidden error when opening
| that website. And I am located in Germany with a German IP.
| Though my server at Hetzner (also in Germany) has no problem
| retrieving contents from that domain.
| ahhhndi wrote:
| To much traffic from HN for that small shared webspace :)
| kortex wrote:
| This app is phenomenal! So far it's picked up everything I've
| thrown at it. Can't say that of the other two plant ID apps
| I've tried before. I think it uses geocoding to some extent -
| it asked for my location (which is fine by me) but it
| required a leaf, fruit, and bark pic to figure out Northern
| Catalpa, which isn't common around here. Everything else has
| been leaf and maybe a fruit or whole plant pic.
| mobilemidget wrote:
| One of these things I think of when I do garden things, "I
| bet there is an app for this" but typically as soon as I have
| left the garden I forget all about it.
|
| I have installed the app now for the next time I am gardening
| :)
|
| Thanks
| ewokone wrote:
| Thanks for pointing out!
| nend wrote:
| I've been using an app called PlantNet that works similarly.
|
| Upload a photo, tell the app which part of the plant is in
| the photo (leaf, flower, fruit, bark), and it'll tell you
| what the plant is.
|
| Highly recommended as well, almost always identifies the
| plant with just one photo. I'll have to check out flora
| incognita sometime.
| ogrisel wrote:
| plantnet works very well. I have also used Google Lens (the
| magic button on Google Photos on Android) but I have the
| subjective feeling that plantnet works more reliably for
| plant identification.
| bwanab wrote:
| I've been amazed at how well PlantNet works. It's
| identified a number of invasive species in my yard that I'd
| otherwise have remained ignorant of.
| swader999 wrote:
| This will bolster my fantasy of living off the land like the
| savage I want to be.
| endantwit wrote:
| ObsIdentify identifies both plants and animals. Works way better
| than I'd have ever imagined!
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.observatio...
| kyrra wrote:
| Not available in the US?
| jiehong wrote:
| Or just have actual botanists identify the plants for you (while
| helping gathering data for AI later):
|
| https://www.flowerchecker.com/
|
| You get a confidence factor, a link to its wiki page, and you can
| even send a special message with the pictures to help clarify
| things.
| bizzleDawg wrote:
| Related to this, I've been working on a side project
| (https://www.hedira.io/, house plant care advisor) for nearly 2
| years now. We haven't gotten time to add species recognition by
| images, but I've done enough to know it's really hard!
| Thankfully, being houseplant focused, people normally have an
| easy time finding out what specific species they have in front of
| them.
|
| I made some classifiers using coreML to test the idea and as with
| a lot of ML problems, 90% accuracy is trivial, but it gets
| difficult really quickly after that. Especially without flowers
| (since they tend to be more unique).
|
| The simplest way I could find to add detection was to use
| something like the plantnet API (https://my.plantnet.org/usage)
| which powers the app of a similar name. There are a couple of
| other plant recognition APIs worth looking at too.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-27 23:01 UTC)