I was wondering if it would make sense to be able to add an identification and mark that identification as “as good as it can be” (rather than the observation).
There are a number of cases where it is reasonable clear that an identification at a level above species is not going to be able to be improved. For instance almost any identification of Sarcoscypha in the UK will be at genus level as there are a few similar species. Currently I can add an identification a genus level (optionally adding a comment if someone has identified to species level) and if there are enough genus level identifications I can click “Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved? = No, it’s as good as it can be”. However there are a few problems with this:
- If I’m the first to add an id then that doesn’t make much sense.
- If there are enough other identifications then that will automatically make it research grade without anyone else having to agree. If I’m wrong someone can vote against me of course.
- I think a lot of people don’t click this box even if they think an id can’t be improved, for instance I have seen a number of Sarcoscypha with 3+ identifications still in “needs id” where someone has commented that it can’t be identified to species level without microscopy.
I’m guessing there are a fairly large number of observations which are on “needs id” but are identified to the best level they can be without that checkbox being clicked. I have just over 100 observations which have been identified at genus level or above and I have no way of knowing whether the people who identified them think they can be improved or not. I could ask but that’s a reasonably big task, and it’s something I might try with future observations.
I want to know what the best possible identification is and if that’s not species level I’d like to know that and have my observation out of the “needs id” pool and I don’t think the current system does that particularly well.