For the 3rd time, I am trying to add Trigonidium riopalenquense as an orchid. There are currently a half dozen observations for this species, and they have all been gobbled up as an insect. Spending an hour or two to get a taxon added is insane: I realize Trigonidium is now accepted, at least by some, as to be within the garbage-can of Maxillaria, but somehow I can’t get T. riopalenquense to be recognized as a plant, much less an orchid, and so on. If I were to make the add/edit taxon ‘curator guide’ page, there are a couple of things I would change, since on that page there are things that do not make sense to someone new to the messy world of getting it right. For example: go to the curator guide page for add/edit taxon. Not a single thing can be learned from the example of Taricha torosa ‘Parent ID’, except that there is a number. What is that number? I would photoshop the words, ‘don’t worry about this number, this box does not to have a number. Ignore this box’. So if parent ID is number (who knows what that number is/will be), what is critical? The parent name. So explain that. The parent name explanation reminds me of how my middle school teacher explained that the definition of a word should not have the word in it. I would re-write this part/definition, by using Taricha torosa as the example. Goodness, Taricha torosa’s parent name is Taricha, right? And just to be crystal clear when you click on Taricha, be sure that is an animal and not a fungus. That explains things more clearly. So, any help with curating Trigonidium riopalenquense the orchid would be appreciated. I have made my attempts. And maybe delete Trionidium riopalenquense the insect? Does it really exist?
Hi Rudy,
It looks like cassi made a flag here to discuss next steps for that taxon https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/376537
I agree we need better tutorials for taxon curation
this is still not resolved; https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/20813252#activity_identification_60579362
with the kind of time that this nightmare causes, it is little wonder that folks who might consider curating just drop it because it is such a pain. who has hours to fix one idiotic taxon? I give up–
this is so screwed up; Trigonidium riopalenquense is not a synonym of Maxillaria riopalenquense please take two seconds to find this kind of important information. It took me a grand total of less than a minute to understand: Trigonidium is a cricket and an orchid. Take a bother to look up Maxillaria riopalenquense and take a bother to look up Trigonidium riopalenquense. They are not synonymous.
In the future if you/the community agrees with a proposed/draft taxon change, just click “Commit” and it will be processed.
As for the invalid taxon Maxillaria riopalenquense, it has been inactivated and I started a flag for others to check out if there are other invalid taxa that were created when several genera were merged into Maxillaria. Let’s continue that discussion on the flag rather than here in the forum.