iNaturalist remembers your filters, did you mean to have it set to filter to just observations annotated as “green leaves”? A lot of observations don’t have any annotations at all, so you will see many more (including many more with green leaves!) if you set this field (located just above the photo browser) to “any”
The reason you are only seeing things IDed to subspecies is because you’ve set the grouping to “taxonomic”. If you set it to none you will see all photos (no longer grouped by subspecies)
Thank you, you’re right, the problem was sorting by Taxonomy – but is it supposed to work like that? That a species with 30 000 observations show nothing if sorted by taxonomy because none of the observations are identified to subspecies? So sorting any species which has subspecies by taxonomy automatically hides all observations identifed to species?
That is exactly how it is supposed to work. The taxonomy grouping is not meant to display all or even most photos, rather provide galleries of whatever photos exist of each immediate child of that taxon (which I think is to help you out with comparison or identification, or just to give you an overview of the diversity of a taxon!) It might make more sense to you if you use it on a higher taxon. For example, here’s what it looks like with the genus Gavia (i.e. loons):
See how it’s a nice gallery of all the different species of loon!
But of course, if any observation is just labelled as “loon” (i.e. the exact species has not been determined yet) it would not make sense to include it in this gallery as we wouldn’t know which section to include it in.
Note that it even makes sense to use taxonomy view at the species level if there are multiple well-documented subspecies! E.g. look at this gallery of common garter snake observations, grouped by subspecies:
To me the expected behavior of sorting a species by taxonomy would be entries for all observations identified to subspecies, then an entry for all observations NOT identified to subspecies.
