iNaturalist was created to connect people with nature, allow naturalists to connect with each other, and allow for a database of organisms that can be used by a broad audience of people. Constant alteration of the taxonomy iNaturalist is based on, by a few specialists and splitters, is making the site very difficult for both casual users and generalist ecologists/land managers to use, because scientific names are constantly changing making it impossible to cross reference with other guides and databases and causing broad confusion. iNat used to only allow taxonomy changes once they made their way to secondary references, and that approach worked a lot better. Somehow it has descended into mass chaos where names literally change every week, sometimes multiple times for the same taxa. There is no way this fits the goals of inaturalist.
Please return to the previous policy of only allowing taxonomy changes once they have made their way to established secondary references. Or alternatively create one nomenclature system for the splitters and taxonomic specialists where they can constantly change names and split and divide species, and also retain another nomenclature system for the rest of us who just want to collect biodiversity data using a consistent classification system.
I use iNaturalist as part of my job, to collect data. I don’t do so as much as i might, because of stuff like this.I would like to create a species list with inaturalist observations, then use a query to get that list and copy to my database. I can’t do this because the names don’t stay the same. I also use iNat to do outreach about wetlands to landowners. Again, very hard to do when the names are constantly changing. I’m honestly thinking of just going back to using common names because the common names are better than inaturalist taxonomy. That’s how bad this has gotten.
We’ve been told many times iNat is to connect people with nature, not to create a database. Under that framework this is even worse. How can you connect with nature if you can’t even identify a super common plant because its name keeps changing?
Look, i think it is neat that we have access to genetic data that affects our knowledge of evolution. While i do think people overrely on it, i also think it’s a powerful too. But, species are still a human construct. People are so obsessed with trying to avoid 'incorrect or ‘old’ taxonomy that they have completely destroyed the ability to use this site for its stated purpose. I am trying to convince landowners to stop mowing wetlands, to stop planting invasive species, to restore damaged wetlands, etc etc etc. These landowners, or at least the vast majority of them, are not plant taxonomists. Do you think they care what a polyphylletic group is? Heck, i don’t even care when it come to species names. Utility trumps correctness. Come on. I am autistic, i am plenty concerned with accuracy, so i get that. But we can’t literally destroy the site over this stuff.
So i ask, once again, PLEASE keep the taxonomy of ferns and other plants limited to at least reasonable secondary references. PLEASE. If you can’t cite something other than a recently published paper for a taxonomy change, DONT DO IT. Others use this site too. Please think of the vast majority of users. Maybe create your own parallel nomenclature where you can constantly change names but please stop doing it here.