I identify a lot of Canadian Feltia spp., and there are 4 species that are similar looking, and can be confusing to ID. Two species can only be identified by using antennal bristles to separate the males. These are hard to see on most photos, so a Complex ID is used. If there are two or three ‘complex’ ID’s, I will check off ‘As good as it can be’. What I’m finding now is sometimes there is an original ID of say, F. jaculifera, and two or three ID’s of the ‘complex’. I know, from looking at the photo, that the observation is not, and will never be, F. jaculifera. Since that ID is on the books, and there are at least two ID’s of the ‘complex’, should I not check off the box, or should I? These are commonly seen moths, so attempting to contact the original observer would take a lot of time.
Any advice would be helpful.
Add one disagreeing complex id and then mark it as good as can be, it’s not ideal, but that’s what people do all the time with complex ids that can’t be ided further than complex. (ofc if it’s an active user you can try asking them to withdraw their id first or ask if they saw more that what can be seen).
P.S. Oh, if it isn’t in the complex, you just need more ids and can’t mark it until id is at complex, it’s the same as any other id (but you say 2 or 3, 3 is enough to overweight one id).
In your example, jaculifera isn’t in the complex, right?
If the observation is at subgenus but you know it can go to complex, leave the box unchecked. If the observation is at complex and you know it can’t go to species, check the box.
No, I know that. What I’m talking about is an initial (wrong) ID with two other experienced people identifying it as part of a ‘complex’. The species name was only an example.
Sorry, if my previous statement doesn’t answer your question, then I don’t think I understand what the question is.
I think situation is first id is of a species, then a couple ids of comlplex, but not disagreeing ids, with that observation is still shows with species id, but can’t be ided further, so without observer withdrawing, people need to disagree with the species id to reach the correct id (which goes against of how disagreement should be used).
e.g. there’s a Polygonum aviculare complex, species are not idable without fruits, but cv always suggests species.
In the example, since jaculifera isn’t in the complex, an ID of complex will definitely disagree with jaculifera. So an obs with jaculifera, complex, complex couldn’t be at species jaculifera.
You’re saying the example should use a species that is in the complex? Like if subgothica and tricosa are in the complex, what should one do on an observation with IDs of tricosa, non-disagreeing complex, non-disagreeing complex?
That has been extensively discussed before and there is not a firm agreement of the “correct” thing to do.
Yeah, I think, based on the last comment, @mamestraconfigurata gave a random species as an example, right?
@fffffffff is correct. I know the ‘complex’ only includes F. tricosa & subgothica, and know - looking at the observation - that the original id is not in the ‘complex’. If the ‘complex’ is identified by two or more people, the result defaults to Feltia genus, but to use that implies that F. herilisor F. jaculifera are still possible, even though neither of those is correct but the two or three ‘complex’ id’s are correct. I do use the generic id if I am not sure (with a beaten up specimen), but I would like to mark them as research grade so I do not need to go through the same exercise multiple times. If this specific issue has been discussed before, could you please provide a link? I have not seen it come up in the past few years.
Sorry, I think we’re still talking past each other. You said the first ID is not in the complex, so the IDs on the hypothetical observation are jaculifera, complex, complex, and the observation is at subgenus. What is the question now? If you add a complex ID, it will go to complex and you can check the box to make it research grade at complex. You want to know if you can check the box without adding a third complex ID? Or if there is some other way to get it to RG at complex?
So, there’s one complex added as a taxon and then there’s a group it can be from which is wider than this complex (that you call complex, but which is not genetically so)? You need to disagree to the subgenus or genus level then and write down which species are possible.
Sorry, I think I have made an error. Feltia spp. does seem to revert to ‘complex’ after a couple of ID’s. I did not refresh the page to see what happened to the ID. I did a couple of tests, and I think there is no issue here. If there is a problem, I will revisit this.
The complex is not visibly identifiable, but the species are genetically distinct.
As with my previous comment, I am going to close this, unless I need to reopen it. Sorry all for the problems.
No worries, glad you figured it out.