A discussion among users before changing taxonomy as a general rule

[fffffffff]

I guess the main problem in that is using old and new taonomy, not just completely 2 different lists. e.g. Larus subspecies or Motacilla alba subspecies, Old World and New World taxonomy view are always different on such things.

[cmcheatle]

The site has been very clear in the past they are not comfortable supporting parallel taxonomies. I guess we can argue for example about if European and North American Herring Gulls are full species or subspecies. From the site perspective what is important is that one and only one version of the argument is reflected in their database.

[fffffffff]

Sure, I agree with that.

[pfau_tarleton]

I’m a professional biologist and it frustrates me when the taxonomy changes. Most of the mammal groups I learned as a grad student are now different. However, it’s not up to me to decide when taxonomic changes should be made, it’s up to my fellow biologists who are specialists in that taxon. I have no choice but to trust that my colleagues made the right decision based on the available data… We all just have to live with the changes, because they reflect our current understanding of the organism’s evolutionary relationships. We can’t be stuck in the past with species placed in wrong groupings which conflict with our current knowledge. The only discussion I could see happening here on iNat is an explanation of why the change was made. But that can get pretty jargon-laden very quickly. Monophyletic clades vs. paraphyletic clades anyone?

Anytime there’s a new discovery made, it takes time for scientists to adjust/accept the new information. Scientists are skeptical by definition, and there has to be convincing evidence. Some people need more evidence than others (just like a courtroom jury). That’s why some individuals/organizations are slower than others in adopting the new taxonomies.

[twr61]

If I understand it correctly, I think that the suggestion made in the original post is a good one: somewhere in the standard operating procedure for making a taxonomic swap, there should be a step to solicit input from the iNaturalist community. The best source for this input is probably those who are the leaders in contributing observations and identifications for the taxon.

Most of the taxon swaps I become aware of result from bringing the iNat taxonomy into agreement with the taxon framework for plants, Plants of the World Online (POWO). In one instance I recall, I had a small part in a discussion that ended up rolling back a swap that the community disagreed with. But in most cases the swap is committed with no indication that anybody beyond a single curator was involved in the decision.

Most taxon swaps are probably non-controversial. Or at least there is no obviously correct answer, so (in the case of plants) the best case is just to go with POWO since it is the official source. But occasionally POWO does seem to go off in the wrong direction and iNat has a mechanism to override.

On a side note, when iNat does disagree it would be nice if this could be communicated back upstream to POWO. Who knows, they might decide we are right.

(BTW, no criticism of the curators who deal with all of taxon swaps in intended. Even if I sometimes get mildly annoyed when my favorite Latin name gets changed, you guys are doing a great job.)

[jdmore]

For taxon changes I have initiated, there are two scenarios where I’ve felt compelled to solicit community feedback before committing the changes. (This is always done in comments in a flag on the relevant taxon, with the top 5-10 identifiers and observers tagged for feedback.)

1. Proposed change would result in a deviation from the accepted iNat framework for that group, or

2. Proposed change would affect more than a dozen or two observations. This is more of a courtesy and heads-up when the change conforms to the accepted taxonomic framework. And how long I wait for feedback is roughly proportional to the number of observations involved. But in a few cases, feedback has come back in support of the existing, non-conforming taxonomy, and then a wider discussion is warranted before making a change that might have to be reversed again in the near future.

I strongly encourage curators to be cautious about potentially high-impact changes, and look for existing flags, discussion, etc., first. And definitely don’t commit a change drafted by a different curator without consulting with them first.

One more reason to get more eyeballs looking at a proposed change is for anything complex, as there can be unforeseen consequences even for more experienced curators.