I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there very succinctly, and this is perhaps why I am not quite persuaded by the request. Though I am in favour of adding synonyms in general there is judgement to be exercised in certain cases (which are perhaps more numerous among fungi?). Even ‘correct’ synonyms can cause problems if it’s not a simple 1:1 mapping, as you say.
People expect the scientific names to be ‘right’, ‘simple’ and even ‘authoritative’ in a way they do not expect for common names. An incorrect/inaccurate common name does cause confusion, and indeed misidentification, but the scientific names are what you fall back on to sort that out: confusion in scientific names does therefore matter more, and perhaps this is a reason for keeping tighter control.
I agree. In one genus of mammals that I work with–which has been split and lumped over the years-- figuring out proper synonomy is very challenging (and this group even has a formal, published synonomy–just understanding it is a challenge). For many taxa, having a non-specialist who is unfamiliar with the details of taxonomic changes within the group entering synonyms might lead to many erroneously applied synonyms. (note: a specialist doesn’t have to be a paid professional–just someone who has specialized knowledge)
Non-curators can add scientific name synonyms though? all you have to do when adding the name is selecting “scientific names” as a language and then mark “no” on the “if this is a scientific name, is it commonly accepted?” check. I’ve been a curator for a while, so maybe i’m wrong, but i don’t remember this feature being restricted only to curators. If you don’t check the “no” mark, you simply cannot add a new scientific name regardless of your curatoriship status.
What is restricted to curators is creating taxon change that usually result in a synonym being automatically added to the end taxon. For example if A and B both exist as separate taxa on iNat, but i realize that they are the same species and A is just an old name for B, which is the currently accepted name, i can merge A into B. A will become an inactive taxon, and B will get A listed as a synonym.
I do think that some synonyms are useful while others can be superflous or just cause confusion, using common sense should be enough to know what the case is.
Also, as others already said, you don’t need any official academic title to qualify for curatorship, personally I don’t have any yet since i’m still a student and I applied because i believe i can provide some help this kind of stuff. Many other experts and curators do not work professionally in the natural science field and do it as an hobby. Some curators are even under 18.
I learned winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) in the genera Ceratoides or Eurotia and some of my field guides use one or the other older generic name. Both old names are included as synonyms on iNat which is helpful, especially since I can’t spell the current genus name.
Ive tried many times as a non-curator to add synonyms from recent revisionary literature and get a red bar stating that only curators can add ‘outdated’ previous names after a revision. If curators who are really sometimes quite unqualified can add the ‘obsolete’ then why not the ordinary inaturalist who has access to the recent scientific literature, who may be equally unqualified ?
But is it true that at the moment any curator without specialised training in a certain field is able to add or approve synonyms ( old names) but a non-curator who is equally untrained cannot do so.
Some curators join to be moderators only. Others may not have formal training, but so long as they are very careful to make correct changes there is no reason they cannot learn by doing.
I’m sort of both. I do some behavioural flags, and a handful of the easier taxonomic flags or anything in the genus I know best, Euphorbia. I have no formal training and only a few years’ experience (from iNat itself and some excellent mentors).
Here’s an example of why you need to do a lot of research before adding synonyms to iNaturalist. There are two versions of Sphaeralcea palmeri published by different authors.
This is from IPNI: https://www.ipni.org/?q=Sphaeralcea%20palmeri
The first one actually is Sphaeralcea palmeri as currently recognized by that name and the second is a synonym of Malacothamnus palmeri. Each of these is for a totally different species as currently recognized. The author is part of the name and it is important to include authors in scientific names in some cases for this reason, which iNaturalist does not do. Note the “nom. illeg.” behind the second. This means the second name is illegitimate. It has been used in the past as a synonym of Malacothamnus palmeri, but should not be included in any database that does not include the author to distinguish the two different Sphaeralcea palmeri. Even if the author was included, including the illegitimate name causes confusion. This was a mistake made in the past, of which there are many, and we should not perpetuate them.
Here is the iNat map of Sphaeralcea palmeri including GBIF observations.
Here is the iNat map of Malacothamnus palmeri including GBIF observations.
Note that GBIF observations of Sphaeralcea palmeri are included on the map of Malacothamnus palmeri, which is completely wrong as Malacothamnus palmeri does not grow south of central California. This is because GBIF lists Sphaeralcea palmeri as a synonym of Malacothamnus palmeri. This is the kind of error than can be created if you don’t thoroughly research synonyms before adding them to databases. These duplicate names that can cause a lot of problems are called homonyms and are fairly common. Before the internet, it was a lot more difficult to know if a name had already been published, so multiple people published the same name for different species.
There also has to be a place people draw a line on how many and which synonyms to include. iNat and POWO currently have an issue with Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia as that name hasn’t been properly published, so shouldn’t be used except as a synonym of of Amsinckia intermedia. To make matters more crazy. Amsinckia intermedia has 153 synonyms according to POWO, most of which should not be added to iNaturalist. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:60470267-2
Anyway, it would be great if someone created a tutorial for how to research synonyms and add to iNaturalist so as not to make a big mess. I don’t see any reason why not to let someone who is really interested in doing this work become a curator and put a lot of effort into it to do it correctly. I would not recommend allowing the general public to do it though as there would probably be a lot of errors added by well-meaning people just adding names from books or websites that are incorrect.
