Can this filter please be fixed.
Checklists are used extensively by managers and researchers, and in southern Africa everyone (except herpetologists) use subspecies.
Basically taxa with subspecies IDs must show up in the “species” filter (either as species or subspecies), and also in the leaf filters (as the finest taxon).
If I click on the maculata obs left - on the right it says - No species found within this taxon in Cape Peninsula 2, WC, ZA. PPS that obs is obscured - is that the answer?
That may make sense in your case. Remember your observations are obscured and may be “outside” the Peninsula, but the checklist for Cape Peninsula 2 includes both observations and lists, and even if all observations happen to be obscured to off CP2, the extra lists (e.g. Adamson & Salter) will still include it inside the area.
in your checklist, you’ve added the subspecies taxa without adding the parent species taxa. if you want to see species or leaves (which are only as granular as species), then you need to add the species-level taxa.
Surely it is a bug. If the leaves only go to species level, then it should display them as species if the subspecies are present.
Especially seen that any ID to species level is not a complete identification, and it is highly likely that where there are subspecies then all observations will be identified to subspecies level for a checklist of a reserve or other localized area where only one subspecies or variety occurs.
just to clarify, i wasn’t suggesting that you add only the species taxon or only the subspecies taxon. you need to add both the species and subspecies taxa.
The problem is that our Red List evaluations are done on subspecies and varieties - and these are often more threatened than just the species.
As a consequence threatened taxa are not showing up in the lists for nature reserves because only the threatened subspecies is present in the area.
This is very misleading when promoting conservation areas and important threatened taxa are missing on iNaturalist because of this bug.
No: “all” shows all ranks.
I only want the terminal leaves and if there is a subspecies or variety then I want that leaf.
But it is a bug, in that if all the Identifications are to subspecies, then the species leaf does display, but if the subspecies is listed in the checklist, then the species leaf does not display: so it is a bug: an illogical inconsistency in the treatment of the same data from different sources.
in this case, you’re manually adding taxa to the list, and you’re adding only species- and subspecies- ranked taxa. so if you use rank=any on this list, you should get back only species and subspecies. are you planning to add ancestor taxa? (you didn’t want to add the parent species taxa for the subspecies. so i assume you’re not going to add any ancestor taxa.)
anyway, i think this discussion has pretty much reached a dead end (for me at least). i tried to explain the situation and offer approaches to get you to your desired end. but if you don’t like any of those approaches, then there’s not much more that i can offer here.
Are you are saying is that iNaturalist does not consider taxa below species level as leaves? That “leaves” stops at the species rank?
And that there is no intention to ever include subspecific taxa as leaves? That any work to level below species level will just have to put up with the clutter of species rank data included?
But more significantly, you are saying: that if subspecies are entered into a checklist, then the species will have to also be entered for the checklist to work properly on the setting “leaves”, and even for the setting “species”. And that this is how it is designed to work! Note that observations all identified to subspecific rank, do show up under ‘species’ and "leaves’, even if there are no species-rank observations present
If that is the case, and this is considered acceptable, then I suppose the matter is closed.
?Should I escalate this to a feature request: that checklists should be better designed to be accurate and useful, without requiring additional taxonomically redundant data entries? Or will I be wasting my time?
