Yes, I meant the default map for the species as shown when you click on a species. @dianastuder I did check the feature requests briefly; I should look a little more. I don’t mean to take this thread off topic, just wondered if anyone knew right off whether this has already been discussed/suggested.
I get these clusters of bad ID’s too. So many naked moth pupae as a European Cossid moth, and so many little green inchworms as a European geometer moth.
As a Catocala person, I get a decent amount of “Pink Underwings” from Australia placed as the American Catocala concumbens (Pink Underwing). Common names… bleh.
2 Likes
Thanks for all the responses. As the OP, I feel this conversation has improved my ability to use better judgment in choosing when to do various types of IDs that express varying levels of confidence, knowledge level, and certainty/uncertainty.
Identify to species (or subspecies/variety): if I am certain because of familiarity of recognition (gestalt), or through a specific combination of characteristics, meaning that the photographed traits that confirm that species are confirmable, or that’s the only species consistent with the evidence that is known to be in the area, whether native or introduced. Whether the observation is possibly cultivated is a major complicating factor here. If there is evidence of cultivation, there is necessarily a different calculation as to the possibility of the organism being a non-native lookalike. If an organism appears wild, I would just ID it even if there’s some other species in some other part of the world that matches the photographic evidence.
Identify to species and leave a comment specifying uncertainty: If the photos are consistent with the common species, but there’s a non-negligible possibility of some other identification if this is a non-local, possibly cultivated, or possibly escaped species. Example, it’s a two-needled pine in a city in the PNW, but it could be Scots pine because the photos don’t show the cones or bark or something else that clearly rules out the other.
Identify to genus and leave comment suggesting a species: For genera that I am knowledgeable about only, meaning I know the species well enough. If the photos unambiguously confirm the genus, and I have a good guess about the species ID, but I’m aware of other species that match the photographic evidence. I would be much more likely to ID to genus for specimens that appear to be cultivated.
Identify to genus (or subgenus) but don’t leave a suggestion for the species: When it’s unambiguously consistent with that genus, but I don’t know enough or there’s not enough photographic evidence to suggest a species. Especially if the species given is obviously wrong, then comment, it’s not that species because of X.
Identify to a high taxon (Dicots, Conifers, Angiosperm, etc.): If it’s been misidentified and I know it’s not that, or it’s in the Unknown bucket, and I don’t know enough about those organisms to suggest anything specific, then set it to general category for others to review more specifically.
Comment without providing an ID: I do this if I have reason to doubt the existing ID, but I’m still learning and not familiar enough with the species or genus to suggest another ID. I might just say something in the form of a question. The needles seem to be too long for that species.
Provide no ID: I skip observations where the photos don’t provide close-enough evidence, in taxa I’m not sufficiently familiar with, or out of my region.
The observations I appreciate the most are the ones where the observer has included multiple photos, distant and close photos of key identifying factors. Then, I can learn by keying out the species, consulting references as needed, and become a more skilled identifier. The more photographic evidence is given of the key characters, the more likely I am to offer an ID outside of my region or current expertise, and the more likely I am suggest a more specific ID. Those are real learning opportunities and something I very much appreciate about identifying on iNat.
7 Likes
I will add a species ID when I am not certain. I don’t do this until I have some experience and knowledge, but there are always things I don’t know yet. Taking a chance and entering an ID when I am still learning, has allowed me to meet many people willing to educate and help me on iNat, and I have learned a great deal because of taking chances. A willingness to be wrong publicly, and change your ID is necessary of course.
6 Likes
After typing all that I said in my previous post, I realize it’s aspirational and not 100% my reality. There are going to be times when I enter an ID without being objectively confirmed. It happened the other day. I was ID’ing a cultivated crocus and thought I knew it. Little did I know there is another crocus almost like it, but with narrower leaves. Fortunately, someone in another country on the other side of the globe correctly pointed out my error just a few hours later. However, if I had not dared to enter that overconfident ID, I would not have learned what I learned. So.
8 Likes
Be careful of using a hard disagreement - which makes it harder to get the obs to CID and Research Grade. iNat uses ‘it’s not that species but it is a dicot’ as disagreeing with all subsequent IDs.
I’m not sure I understand this. How could a hard disagreement to a high-level be a disagreement to future IDs and what exactly are the consequences of this?
1 Like
iNat treats a disagreeing ID as a disagreement with all child taxa of the taxon entered as the disagreeing ID. A disagreement is not interpreted as “not species X, but something within this taxon”, which may seem like what it ought to mean.
So if an observation was ID’d as, say, a daisy and you know it is not that but aren’t sure what it is, and enter “angiosperms”, iNat considers it a disagreement not just with daisies, but also with the family Asteraceae and even with “dicots”. If it subsequently turns out that the family was correct, it requires more IDs to override the disagreement.
So it’s best to disagree at as low a taxonomic level as possible – say, at the level of family rather than class (this also has the advantage that the more specific the ID, the more likely it is to be seen by someone who does know what it is). Obviously sometimes you won’t have any idea what something is and the high level is the best you can do. That’s fine. But in such cases, it is very helpful if you make sure that you check notifications and can withdraw or edit your ID if necessary.
The computer vision suggestions can be useful in cases where you don’t have any idea about an observation except what it isn’t. I don’t use it directly for an ID unless I am somewhat familiar with the suggested taxa, but it can help to get a sense of where to start (for example, if all the suggestions are in a particular family). For suspected garden plants, including suggestions not seen nearby sometimes offers helpful inspiration.
3 Likes
Thanks for the explanation. So, when going to a higher-level taxon, it’s important to consider the subject carefully and intelligently choose which specific higher level to choose. That’s interesting, because it might require me to learn something new. As someone who knows a lot of plant species and genera, and has a general idea of families, it seems like it will still be important for me to decide whether a plant I’ve never seen before is a monocot or a dicot, and whether or not it’s in the same family as the proposed ID.
I think I and most casual plant people could probably tell a vascular plant from a moss or liverwort, and I think I could pretty reliably indicate whether something is a gymnosperm or angiosperm (most would be obvious, with a few obvious exceptions people learn, like the Gingko) … for monocots vs. dicots, I guess we’d be looking for parallel vs branching leaf veins.
I don’t have formal botanical training either, so a lot of my knowledge of the broader taxonomy is based on bits and pieces I’ve gradually picked up or intuited. IDing is also good for expanding your knowledge – I certainly know a lot more than I did six months ago. The taxonomy tab on iNat taxon pages is also helpful for getting a sense of how the different plant groups relate to one another.
I thought there was a discussion sometime in the last several months by other users who are also trying to get a grasp on general plant taxonomy, but I can’t find it. This thread might be of interest, however:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/questions-for-the-botanists/38906
I’ve seen the opposite, where someone has added an ID at species level, and in the comments has written “probably” or “I think” or something else which indicates that they may not be 100% sure.
4 Likes
Check what effect your ID has on the CID, and also on the display ID up top. Are both results what you expected? Follow your notifications.
Species A (wrong)
Disagree to Plants
Species B
and a second species B
feels as if iNat should = species B, but it doesn’t.
I wish iNat would let us say - it’s not Species A, without insisting that we HAVE to default to it is Something Else.
We struggle with this
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/ancestor-disagreement-persists-after-disputed-id-is-withdrawn/15552
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/inat-doesnt-seem-to-update-community-id-the-one-displayed-for-an-observation-properly-in-certain-cases/31179/6
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/change-wording-used-by-the-system-when-downgrading-an-observation-to-an-higher-level-taxa/3862/60
https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/25514-clarifying-ancestor-disagreements
1 Like
Yes, that is confusing. As I was reading all that, I found myself thinking about a design that somehow asks users whether they disagree at each level up from the species up to the taxonomic level they chose.
CID is Symphyotrichum subspicatum. I know it’s not, but I have no idea, so I click “Kingdom Plantae”.
Do you disagree this is Asteraceae? Yes/No/Don’t Know
Do you disagree this is a Magnioliopsida (Dicot)? Yes/No/Don’t Know
Do you disagree that this is in Subphylum Angiospermae? Yes/No/Don’t Know
Do you disagree that this is in Tracheophyta (Vascular Plants)? Yes/No/Don’t know
(Of course if one agrees on any level, then levels above would be considered agreement as well.
Sadly, this would never fly. Even the above would be oversimplified, since there are subgenera, subfamilies and sections and subsections within Asteraceae that would likely need to be included, and no one wants to be asked separately about all that.
After all those questions: Aargh, I disagree with the entire taxonomy! It’s Aster subspicatus and that’s that!
1 Like
Yes, my field botany professor once opined that our system of nomenclature was like a set of boxes, but organisms do not always fit inside a given box. And hence experts constantly adjust the set of boxes to try and get a better fit with nature – our nomenclature has to be adjusted when we learn more.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.