I used to get peeved a little when the taxonomists “messed with” a species I’d known for years as one name but was now another. My thinking has changed some over the years.
A taxon is an artificial category in the Linnaean classification system. It isn’t real in a biological sense but tries to reflect the evolutionary reality as revealed by systematics. A taxon is also a hypothesis about relationships and thus not set in stone; it can be revised as needed. There is a One True Phylogeny of life on earth, and that’s what systematics tries to uncover, but the taxonomy we use to try to categorize life forms is a human construct and will never be fully adequate to capture the reality.
Out of necessity, iNat has to use one taxonomy or another although it can change as new information is discovered, new arrangements are proposed, and the prevailing philosophy of what is a species shifts. No one will ever be fully satisfied with any taxonomy, nor should we expect to be. You just gotta roll with it.
That is a totally different thing. When it is clear that a person is interested (comment, question and tagging is an indication for that) and wishing to know, I always respond and explain. But the thing is that many users just employ AI without any thinking or tiniest bit of research (at least in Google) and do so repeatedly, why bother with explanations? Moreover, some of them just ignore explanations and add another ID and again from AI (apparently the next one that was offered).
how would one retroactively differentiate two semi-cryptic species based on field sheets? No, most inventories don’t have full vouchering as that takes tons of time and money and space. Applied conservation is in a constant state of sparsity and economic desperation, more or less, and yeah most data sets aren’t ideal for a lot of reasons, but it’s what we have and we have to work with that. iNat helps a lot in terms of at least photo vouchers but… often these new ‘species’ can’t be distinguished from photos anyway.
gonna really try to leave it at that because i don’t think this is going anywhere I haven’t already gone and i don’t want to pollute the forum but… for one reason or another this communication isnt effective as i don’t think you are seeing my point at all based on your last post.
I am not sure whether you imagine the amount of data that has to be collected for monitoring (including the one for conservation purposes). And the amount of necessary data versus number of profesionals working in field and collecting that data. Moreover, can you always collect vouchers (e.g. case of threatened species)?
You make a good point. Thanks for the stories! I guess I just feel a little out of my depth, but I often do have a good sense of what I’m observing, even if not at the species level (so many hours spent on iNat & elsewhere . . .). I’ll try to get over my nervousness and give it a shot next time, though I think I’ll wait until it’s not something decomposing. ;) Who knows, maybe I can recruit another iNatter.
I can understand the amount of work that goes into building inventories. I’ve done a lot of this work myself. I also understand that field lists have very limited value without evidence to support a given name on a sheet. But this is a problem beyond just taxonomic resolution. It’s a matter of introducing all sorts of human error.
I am talking about trying to deal with the world we have, not the ideal world I wish I had. I would love to have a huge herbarium and a large part of why I use iNat is to try to at least get photo vouchers of stuff that in the past were just lines on a sheet.
We are dealing with frantically trying to digitize and track herbariums that are being thrown away by universities out here in the applied world. We are unfortunately moving backwards rather than foreward in the world of vouchering. Not just conceptually. https://www.wcax.com/content/news/Wildlife-Watch-Taking-stock-of-Green-Mountain-Colleges-herbarium-565488071.html . I am hoping to get some of these on iNat somehow, though there is also some other digital herbarium that things get digitized to. We are lucky if it isn’t all thrown away :(
Interesting - I did not know that. Perhaps iNat needs a sort of quick guide to taking identifying features of specific groups. As another example, the major way to identify moths is an above shot of the wings. I don’t know how to photograph plants for ID. I have photographed fungi, but don’t know what the important features are.
This feels like it’s getting heated, so I’ll back off. I’ll just mention that I never said inventories are not worth making. Just that their reliability can be overstated in the lack of evidence supporting their claims.
And the digitizing herbaria comment @charlie is totally unrelated. We’re on the same team comrade :)
fair enough. I guess I read " field lists have very limited value " different than you intended. I edited my posts to sound less cranky. I hope my use of iNat comprises at least a limited form of vouchering. I spend plenty of time puzzling over old field notes where the species seem wrong, and at least having some photos will help the next person who comes along someday to make some sense of what I and others saw…
For sure! Every effort contributes to a different aspect of the endeavor. The rapid bulk efforts and the sluggish minute efforts. We’ll figure this damn evolution problem out some day lol
That’s sweet, but I sometimes feel vaguely like I’m either calling in my “enforcers”, tattling, or being passive aggressive if I have to “at” somebody to backup my IDs.
I realize that’s more of a problem with my own perception, because I would never be against someone else doing that, so don’t be offended if I don’t take you up on that offer very often.
@mamestraconfigurata I second what @alex_abair said. I am usually quite happy to explain the differences when asked. I used to explain the differences for every identification, but it became too much of a time sink. Now, I do it primarily when I know the observer has expressed interest before or when it’s a species of special interest.
Not all identifiers are interested in explaining, but regardless of who is identifying for you, I would encourage you to ask if you really do want to learn the differences. Once you learn the differences, I would also encourage you to pass that information along through identifications. These kinds of interactions are really what make iNaturalist the special place that it is.
I imagine you’ve forgotten by now, but one of my earliest Observations was a shot of four different Anisophyllum species, and you took the time to point out the multiple species (which I hadn’t noticed!) and then explain the differences between the four when I expressed curiousity. It was a very positive experience for me and helped draw me into the platform. So keep it up, please!
I agree. I feel that all too often people come in and make an ID that contradicts every other ID on an observation. Then when asked to support their claim, many people never respond back. I’ve seen some observations left at suboptimal taxanomical rankings as a result.
I feel better just knowing about these experiences.