I’ll add here that I think the CID system is great for encouraging people to give it a go (identifying) and consequently is terrific for teaching/learning and engaging activity, but the down side is that many users that apply IDs aren’t going to be around to partake in that dialog. Even if they are regular users, they may not re-visit their past IDs when challenged via alerts of dissenting IDs or comments, or even when tagged.
There is an interesting case in New Zealand with Zoropsidae, where we have a particular one that gets observed often, and in all the guide books and across google searches it is identified as Uliodon albopunctatus but the literature does not support the species level ID. I’ll repeat here my standard comment that I put on these when I see species IDs:
From Paquin et al. (2010) p92
"New Zealand Zoropsidae are badly in need of taxonomic attention. They have been recently transferred from Miturgidae to Zoropsidae by Raven & Stumkat (2003). The three known species are not recognisable based on published descriptions. Another 40 undescribed species are suspected (R.J. Raven, pers. comm.) and may represent several distinct genera. The males of Uliodon albopunctatus and Uliodon cervinus are undescribed."
So really, they should only be ID’d to genus! However, we have Cor Vink who has, I believe, worked with the literature and the family enough to be able to give species level IDs on these, and there has been mention of a revision (yet to be published). Cor Vink is one of the authors on the publication I refer to, so I would be inclined NOT to explicitly disagree with his species level ID!
This example illustrates that while one could make the statement “these can’t be ID’d to species from a photo”, there will be cases where they can, but only by those who have an extensive working knowledge of the taxa/group in terms of literature AND actual specimens.