Nature
Identify landscapes, cloud formations, natural phenomena, and more.
What is in this section
How to use the nature section
There are 4 articles here , published between January 2026 and March 2026, and they answer questions rather than catalogue species: how to tell two similar things apart, what a particular mark or shape means, what to do once you know. They are the long form.
The faster route, when you have the thing in front of you, is one of the 2 free keys for this section — 58 entries between them. A key does not ask you to describe what you are looking at in words; it asks a series of questions you can answer by looking, and the list shrinks as you go. Nothing is hidden behind the filter: every entry is written into the page, so the whole catalogue is readable with scripting switched off, and each one carries the single sentence that separates it from its nearest look-alike.
There is a third thing on the site worth knowing about from here, because it answers a question this section cannot. People arriving at an identification problem usually end up comparing apps, and the honest answer to "which one" depends on facts that change — what each costs this month, what it locks behind a subscription, who publishes it. Those pages exist under compare and alternatives, and not one figure on them is typed by hand: every price and every in-app purchase list is read from a dated App Store snapshot, and the build fails if a currency amount ever appears in the editorial text. It is the same discipline as the numbers below, applied to a subject that goes stale faster.
Reading a shortlist without being fooled by it
Whatever brings you here, the failure mode is the same and it is worth naming. A key, an app and a search all hand you a shortlist, and a shortlist feels like an answer. It is not: it is a set of candidates that survived the characters you happened to check, and the one at the top is usually the one that is common rather than the one that is right. That is often the same thing, which is exactly why it is dangerous when it is not.
Three habits fix most of it. Check a character you have not used yet — if the candidate survives a test drawn from a different part of the organism, the identification is much stronger than one built on colour alone. Check where you are: an enormous share of confident misidentifications are species that do not occur within a thousand miles of the observer, and geography alone settles them. And notice when the answer does not matter — a great many identifications are curiosity, where being wrong costs nothing, and the small number where it does cost something are worth treating completely differently.
Where the consequence of an error is medical — anything eaten, anything that bit somebody, anything a child had in their hands — no page here and no app is the right tool. Describe what you have to somebody qualified, and keep the specimen or a photograph. The keys are built to make that description accurate, which is a genuinely useful thing to be, and it is a different job from telling you it is safe.
Open data
What the observation record actually says about nature
Orvik's free keys for this section cover 24 named species, and each of them is matched against GBIF, the international register of biodiversity records. Between them they stand on 725,754 georeferenced records spanning 19 families and 10 orders, the oldest specimen collected in 1877. None of these figures is typed into the page: they are read from a dated snapshot, 2026-09-04, and every one is checkable against the source. A further 4 entries in these keys name a genus or a family rather than a single species; their counts already contain everything beneath them, so they are left out of this total rather than added to it.
Most of that record comes from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States — which is a fact about who uploads observations, not about where these nature live, and it is worth holding on to when a key looks confident about a species' range. Half of every record for this group falls in April–August. The figure below separates the two effects: the bars are the raw monthly share, which largely tracks when people go outdoors, and the line divides each month by this corpus baseline — every species in every Orvik key — so what remains is what is particular to this section rather than to the seasons of nature-watching itself.
Best-evidenced nature in our keys
Ranked by how much evidence exists rather than by how likely you are to meet one, because those are different questions and only the first can be measured. A high count is a good prior when a key narrows to two candidates and you have to pick.
| Species | GBIF records | Half fall in | In the key |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blue mussel | 232,395 | Aug–Oct | seashell identifier |
| Common cockle | 101,430 | Mar–Aug | seashell identifier |
| Atlantic slipper shell | 81,342 | Feb–Jul | seashell identifier |
| Common periwinkle | 59,882 | May–Aug | seashell identifier |
| Common whelk and egg case | 54,997 | Apr–Aug | seashell identifier |
| Dog whelk | 46,493 | Jun–Sep | seashell identifier |
| Sand dollar | 23,218 | Aug–Sep | seashell identifier |
| Shark eye moon snail | 18,351 | Jan–Jun | seashell identifier |
| Eastern oyster | 15,837 | Jan–Jun | seashell identifier |
| Atlantic bay scallop | 14,485 | Feb–Jul | seashell identifier |
| Olympia and Pacific oyster | 11,519 | May–Jun | seashell identifier |
| Queen conch | 9,027 | May–Aug | seashell identifier |
Every figure on this page comes from the same snapshot, and the whole thing is published as one downloadable file: open field data, CC BY 4.0, with each source's own licence listed. If a number here disagrees with the source database today, the source is right and this snapshot is old.
Free keys in this section: What cloud is that? · What shell did I find on the beach?
To identify nature, start with clear observation and a good photo: note size, shape, color patterns, textures, behavior and the habitat, and record time and location. Photograph multiple angles and include a common object for scale when possible, then compare those visual details against reference images, range maps and seasonality. Combining a photo, contextual notes and repetition of observations is the fastest way to narrow to a confident identification.
How Orvik helps
Orvik uses an image-recognition model trained on over 10,000 species together with contextual filters—location, date and habitat—to provide ranked suggestions with confidence scores. The app highlights the diagnostic features it relied on, shows visually similar species for side-by-side comparison, and preserves your original photo and metadata so you can track changes or corrections. Community and expert feedback feed back into the platform to refine future suggestions.
What you can learn and safety notes
With Orvik you can learn species names, key field marks, typical habitats, life stage and behavior, plus practical details such as known edibility or toxicity. The app flags species commonly associated with stings, allergic reactions or poisonous mushrooms and recommends avoidance or protective handling; it is not a substitute for medical or professional advice. Always cross-check critical identifications with local field guides or specialists before handling, consuming or intervening with wildlife.
Frequently Asked Questions
- How accurate is Orvik at identifying plants, animals or fungi?
- Accuracy depends on photo quality, diagnostic features visible and the species’ distinctiveness. Orvik provides confidence scores and similar-looking alternatives so you can judge results; confirm uncertain or high-risk IDs with field guides or local experts.
- Is Orvik free to use?
- Orvik’s core identification tools and the basic species database are free to use. There may be optional subscriptions for extras such as offline packs, advanced filters or extended metadata history.
- What are the best practices for taking a photo that will identify well?
- Take multiple close-up shots of diagnostic parts (leaves, flowers, bark, wings, eyes) plus one showing the whole organism and its habitat, and include a scale reference when possible. Avoid glare and motion blur, focus on the subject, and capture the date and location automatically if your camera or phone allows.
- Can Orvik tell me if a mushroom or plant is poisonous?
- Orvik flags species that are commonly reported as toxic, allergenic or capable of causing harm and provides notes on typical risks. However, the app cannot guarantee safety; treat flagged species with caution and consult local mycologists, poison control or medical professionals before consuming or treating exposure.
- How does Orvik use my photos and location data?
- Orvik preserves your original photo and associated metadata to improve identification context and to let you track sightings over time. You can control whether photos and location are uploaded for community review; consult the app’s privacy settings for opt-out and data-retention options.
- Can I suggest a correction or contribute an expert identification?
- Yes, the app accepts user suggestions and community confirmations which are used to update records and improve the model. Expert or verified contributions are weighted more heavily and can prompt review of ambiguous or frequently misidentified species.
Free nature tools, in your browser
Filterable identification keys and calculators. Nothing to install, no account, and every entry is readable without JavaScript.
Explore Other Topics
Identify more with Orvik — from plants to rocks, insects to birds