When recording vascular plants on iNat, I sometimes enter my personal ID at the species level when uploading the observation, then return some time later to refine my ID to the subspecies or variety level. If my ID is the only one present when I do this, the Observation Taxon (displayed above the photos, in searches etc.) simply updates to follow my ID without issue:
However, if other users have already agreed with my initial ID with species-level IDs of their own, then the Observation Taxon remains at the species level:
I guess this feels a little unsatisfying and less than ideal? When I identify an observation past species level, the Observation Taxon only follows if I make that ID before others add supporting IDs at species level or higher, which seems a bit arbitrary. It also prevents certain observations with leading IDs below species level from turning up in searches for that particular subspecies or variety.
To sidestep this issue, with my own observations, if I observe something that I think I can identify past species shortly (just not right then), I sometimes wait until I have done so before uploading it to iNat. This feels silly, but seems to help give the Observation Taxon I want, and to attract supporting IDs both below and at species level:
Anyone have thoughts on this?
6 Likes
When you go back to observations later and add an identification below species level, it can be helpful to opt out of the community ID for a while to get some more visibility for your observation at the lower taxon level.
You might even choose to check āyesā on the ācan the community taxon be improvedā data quality assessment in order to roll back the research grade status to attract a more specific ID.
2 Likes
Iāve also been confused by this!
1 Like
I occasionally search up observations with āident_taxon_id=infraspecific taxaā to clean up those, where I know I can ID them (for an overly-specific Australian example, Patersonia umbrosa var xanthina is pretty easily distinguished from the usual variety, being yellow instead of purple).
I do find it - something, how this works. On the one hand, just because subspecies exist doesnāt mean an observation can or should be identified to that level, so obviously going to research grade shouldnāt be paused at that point (not every Patersonia umbrosa observation has flowers). Equally, just because one person identified it to infraspecific taxa doesnāt mean theyāre right; thereās no guesses about whether that yellow Patersonia is the variety I suggest (unless I mixed it up with Xyris or something!), but thereās even odds Iāve mixed up the Conostylis aculeata subspecies even if the plant is indubitably that species, so its perfectly reasonable that its only showing to species. The fact that it will stay at subspecies if its the initial ID and I donāt disagree isā¦ definitely the interesting interaction, there, and in most cases encourages me to leave those alone unless I can ID the subspecies even if I know the species (which is, I think, why some of my variety observations can take longer to ID than when I do them simply to species. Depends on whose around, presumably, the same variety sometimes goes quickly).
The suggestions to opt out or hit ācan be improvedā are options, though depending on the taxa you might get a bunch of species IDs for the latter. If you know someone who wonāt be bothered and can reliably confirm or disagree, you could tag them. You could just leave it, someone might wander by eventually, or the other people in the observation might notice and update their IDs (Iāve seen both happen a few times). If you periodically go through RG observations of the species in question and update to subspecies (especially with explanation) itās possible that it might catch on and other people will start looking through the RG obs to fix it up, so you donāt need to bother. Iāve gotten the impression that Barnardius zonarius folks do that as a matter of course, though not being a bird person Iāll leave that business to them (I distinctly recall getting a subspecies ID which got disagreed with because it couldnāt be told for certain on one of my blurrier birds, and I concur that I couldnāt tell the species from that one!).
2 Likes
iNat misses the step where
ssp / var is at Needs ID.
Then leaps to ssp / var at RG.
But if the ssp / var is the only one - that is what we see.
Since iNat is inconsistent, I do āsupport sspā when I am reasonably certain.
Because of recent taxonomy changes https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1588206-Protea-afra-afra is sometimes left at Protea afra, when it should be Protea afra afra - that I push.
2 Likes
Another side of this is that if the ssp ID is not the first ID and therefore the Observation ID is to species, the shortcut āAā to agree agrees with the species not the subspecies - which may not be what the identifier wanted. Likewise, if the identifier is on the Identify page, they wonāt even see the subspecies ID unless they click on the observation. Thus, if they just click āAgreeā, it will go to RG at species level rather than subspecies, without them even realising there was a subspecies ID.
Incidentally, you give the example of a previous ID being to species, but the same is true if the initial ID is āplantsā. Iāve been puzzled and occasionally frustrated by this behaviour for a while.
Of course, when it comes to subspecies ID, Iām sometimes faced with the question, is it better to be RG at species level (without disagreement, if I just donāt know) or Needs ID at subspecies level?
1 Like
I would like iNat to offer Needs ID at subspecies.
To respect that ID, as they do the others.
1 Like
Iāll take that as a side-benefit of my compulsive desire to annotate; if I want to annotate, I have to open the observation and find out about the subspeciesā¦
1 Like
Thanks! Certainly I could do that but, based solely on my very general impression of how rejecting Community ID is used and perceived, I feel it may be overkill to invoke that feature just for this purpose.
I still find myself questioning why the Observation Taxon behaves this way in the first place, thoughā rewarding initial infraspecies IDs (however justified they may be) but āpenalisingā those that follow prior coarser IDs. By contrast, IDs to genus/species etc. following prior coarser IDs do update the Observation Taxon.
I canāt speak for how this affects other users, but itās definitely created a weird incentive for me to defer posting things when I know they have meaningful subspecies/varieties but Iām still figuring out which one (if any) that I have.
If Iām understanding correctly, this post was about an old (now resolved) issue where a leading species ID would move the Observation Taxon forward to species but a leading subspecies ID wouldnāt. Given that itās kind of similar in flavour to the issue Iām bringing up here, I do feel a twinge of doubt about whether it really is an āintendedā feature (Iām not discounting it yet, though).
If you can confidently ID to subspecies or variety, then do so. We workaround where iNat does not like to āseeā ssp or var. You can, but ā¦
Rather use Can Be Improved than Opt Out of Community ID - but either works so long as you respond to notifcations to keep the ID and Needs ID vs RG on track where you intended your ID or DQA to go.
1 Like
I like the idea of voting ācan be improvedā to indicate that I think a finer ID is possible, but it simply demotes the observation back to āNeeds IDā without making the leading subspecies/variety ID the Observation Taxon :/
Going back to the underlying issue though, if I have an observation thatās first IDed to species or higher and then IDed to subspecies/variety by someone else or myself - (1) is there really no way to display subsp/var as the Observation Taxon without disabling community ID? And (2) is this behaviour (prior coarser IDs āblockingā subspecies/variety IDs) really intended?
It is intended, because we battled to get ssp and var āseenā at all.
You can make a Feature Request.
1 Like