Many taxa or group of taxa are well-known to be extremely critical as far as their identifications is concerned, that is in most cases only skilled naturalists can provide a reliable identification. This means that in the vast majority of cases these taxa are not identifiable on photographic materia…

[image] Italopithecus: the first ones I think of are Taraxacum section Taraxacum, At the risk of setting off a poopstorm: that sounds more like a question of whether you are a lumper or a splitter. [image] upupa-epops: Has POWO’s taxonomy changed since this flag? If not, then from iNatu…

Regardless of the lumping vs splitting issue (whether you want genus > section > microspecies or just genus > species, where species = section), there is also the issue of misidentification. At the moment all introduced dandelions in North America are identified are either T. officinale (= section T…

[image] jasonhernandez74: It depends on whether you are a lumper or a splitter. When dealing with agamospecies the issue “lumpers vs splitters” is not so important despite an invitation towards a more pragmatic treatment of some of these genera has been made. As regards, see the “Weberian ref…

[image] rupertclayton: However, this usage is not one that is familiar to native English speakers, who are mostly going to interpret “ critical ” as meaning exceptionally important, or inclined to find fault, or relating to criticism. I am sorry to have used this term in a way it has caused som…

The bottom line is that humans classifyspecies as concepts to understand and manage our world. It’s an important and valuable endeavor! However, it’s a human endeavor. Picking apart the genetic diversity and small scale variations in Taraxacum is a worthwhile thing to do, since it tells us more abo…

[image] charlie: But what I don’t see as worthwhile is removing everyone’s dandelion IDs on a citizen science site because taxonomists have detected minor variations and distinct genetic strains. Why? I did not propose to remove anything, just to inform people before they could make their fre…

[image] Italopithecus: In Taraxacum the rank that has been chosen for this purpose is the section. I think it could be ok for your inclination. if we do decide to include the microspecies I’d hope at least we could batch edit all the officinale to the subgenus rank instead of genus.

[image] charlie: if we do decide to include the microspecies I’d hope at least we could batch edit all the officinale to the subgenus rank instead of genus. T. officinale is included in section Taraxacum and suggesting people to stop at the rank of section is just what I would like to try to …

i think the problem is the ‘suggesting’. If we just made the common name ‘common dandelion’ apply only to the subgenus and removed it from the species, it would probably stop 99% of them.

have you tried to check if the computer-vision identifification tool suggests section Taraxacum (=common dandelions) as the likeliest identification? I am pretty sure in most cases it suggest, above the genus, T. officinale.

A way to prevent unexperienced users from identifying very critical taxa?

General

charlie December 2, 2020, 4:03pm 54

In a really brief sentence or two: what would you do? make a pop up any time someone adds a dandelion (which i personally would find very irritating :D )

Topic		Replies	Views
Overlooked dandelion diversity in BC (and everywhere in North America?) Nature Talk	120	10314	November 6, 2021
How much expertise should we have when identifying? General	73	6384	June 25, 2020
Species ID errors in difficult taxa? General question	35	2065	September 9, 2022
My Dandelion Manifesto General	184	6559	April 10, 2024
Lemna minor: an example of what happens when there is no taxon expert tending to identifications General	43	3377	April 19, 2023

A way to prevent unexperienced users from identifying very critical taxa?

Related topics