Choosing not to identify subspecies

Agreeing to species is fine. Perhaps they weren’t clear that your ID was not a disagreeing ID (commonly overlooked/misconception/difficult to explain).

One annoying issue is that adding a non-disagreeing species ID after an infraspecies ID will bump the observation ID up to species, which seems wrong. But, there’s currently no way to separate the observation ID and community ID as far as “research grade” goes.

3 Likes

You identify as you see fit, don’t let their comments bother you. If you agree with them, then by all means change your ID…

3 Likes

That was really my question. If this is commonly viewed as “annoying” I will not enter an ID any more to below-species-level observations, because the downside to the observer seems to outweigh the benefit (zero) to me. Maybe the Identify tool should default to observations that are not below species-level then, so if one wants to do subspecies and varieties, they can filter it in?

I would identify that as “annoying,” personally. As long as the system interprets that ID by bumping it back to species, it sort of functions as a disagreement in spite of it not being intended to. IDing to subspecies (at least in my experience with plants) can be a lot of work, on the one hand, and subspecies ID can have important conservation implications. It would alternatively be a good opportunity to inquire as to how that observation was IDd to subspecies so that you can improve your own ID knowledge- or on the off chance it turns out they have no idea and just picked whatever the suggester pulled up, by all means bump it to species.

4 Likes

Thank you for your perspective. As an amateur, I like to help where I can, and where I can is not below species level. I am fine with not making any ID on these types any more, but I do think that the system should be changed, because it is not clear to the average person. I will withdraw my ID on the example.

4 Likes

For what it’s worth, it would be desirable for that user’s observation to have included photos displaying the distinguishing characteristics that identify that subspecies, if possible, or at least an explanation in the description attributing the ID to the authority cited further down- otherwise how are other site users (some of whom may be able to ID the subspecies, but perhaps not from that single photo) going to “confirm” the ID with any confidence? On this point I think this discussion intersects with the interesting “What Counts as Evidence?” thread.

4 Likes

Per the example case involving me above:

Anemone multifida is a very uncommon species in California, with just a couple localities per the Jepson eFlora – explicitly including the Marble Mountains where this was found. A. multifida var. multifida is the only infrataxon found in the state, although there are others elsewhere in NA. So in the context of California, A. m. is equivalent to A. m. m., and an ID disagreement is nonsequitur. Further, a regional expert botanist on the trip offered the ID in the first place (I’m also a botanist for what it’s worth). And a bit further yet, at the varietal rank it represents the lone CA observation on iNaturalist.

So all of those things contribute to a sense of insistence about the ID. I suspect there are many iNat users who log observations not in search of ID consensus, but to document things they have seen and already know. And while it’s perhaps dubious to suggest taking IDs at face value all the time, I think intentionally downgrading taxonomic resolution without knowing why can serve to irritate people who put a lot of time and effort into reaching granular IDs, yet can’t or don’t care to ‘show their work.’

Also, any curtness in my observation comment was directed at myself for reflexively agreeing with the coarser ID before I thought more about it – I don’t mean for this to be a tongue-lashing at all. For the most part I agree with er1kksen: ideally observations have diagnostic info, but if not it’s maybe prudent to ask the observer, or do some independent digging before disagreeing.

4 Likes

Just to clarify, I did not regard this as a disagreement, because I did not check any box saying that I explicitly disagreed. I assumed that an observation in “Needs ID” would “want” to become “Research Grade.” I now understand that it is considered preferable to leave it at “Needs ID” until the subspecies or variety can be confirmed. It just wasn’t clear to me before, and it probably isn’t clear to others. I appreciate all the explanations here.

1 Like

the thing is, an ID to species level isn’t wrong, and she didn’t disagree with your subspecies ID. I agree the current way it works is kinda weird but the best response would probably be just to reject community ID for that one observation, not to go back and disagree with someone who wasn’t really w rong.

If the subspecies is the only one found in the state, then there isn’t really much point in going to subspecies anyway, especially if you are just mapping based on range rather than based on a characteristic you see, though i guess that’s already been debated (if not resolved) elsewhere.

And yeah if people don’t want speceis level non-disagreeing ID on subspecies, then we should probably offer an option to filter subspecies out of IDs. Though that may already be possible.

3 Likes

This is already possible on Identify. As usual, I was just trying to shift the burden of filtering . . . both because I might forget, and also because I think there are other identifiers like me who might not understand that sub-species-level observations are not supposed to have species-level agreements.

3 Likes

i’ve done it on occasion before when something was stuck as casual for a long time but i was certain of the species ID. usually with an absent user or with a comment noting i can remove the ID. I’m not sure there is a good or consistent answer here. I persoanlly will not ID to subspecies by range, i will sometimes agree with the subspecies if i already know the features and they are visible but usually i don’t do it. Usually i just hit reviewed and skip the subspecies IDs

1 Like

My quarrel isn’t really with any specific user or instance. I just sometimes bristle at the system. It is also ‘not’ a ‘disagreement’ to call it Plantae. But if it walks like a disagreement and talks like a disagreement…

And on the contrary, I can’t see any reason not to go to subspecies if it’s the only one in a geography. Infrataxa can be subtle but they’re still just context-dependent evolutionary boxes we draw, just like any rank. And the logic doesn’t work for other ranks! Should one leave all incense cedars in CA as genus Calocedrus because only C. decurrens is there?

I think it comes down to the philosophy of identification. I strive to identify to a terminal rank because parent ranks don’t biologically ‘exist’ – they’re just bygone evolutionary nodes. A species that over time has diverged into two subspecies is not an organism, it is a category containing two organisms. This approach doesn’t necessarily mesh well with iNat’s internal mechanisms, social ecosystem, and accommodation of uncertainty via such categories, but it’s how I want to maintain my suite of observations.

7 Likes

i don’t want to rehash too much but identifying subspecies by geography at best tells you absolutely nothing more than going to species, and at worst it generates wrong data because you might be missing another subspecies because you aren’t even looking. I don’t think we should ever do that (note this is my opinion as a person not as a forum admin or iNat curator or anything like that). But subspecies are fundamentally much more fine scale than species. Or else they are supposed to be.

I mean, if the only other subspecies is 3000 miles away the chance of being wrong is small, but then, what’s the point?

A species is a category containing as many genetically distinct organisms as there are individuals, barring clonally reproducing species. But, we don’t go taconomically down to ‘Fred, the Incense cedar growing by the spring at 6093 feet’. Trying to parse out location based subspecies just seems like a horrible idea if we can’t see the features and honestly, i don’t know why anyone pays attention to that stuff at all. Any geographically disjunct population is going to be genetically distinct anyway.

That all being said, i am not going to be explicitly disagreeing with your ids and bumping them back to species. But if anyone IDs a subspecies from my species based on location, i typically don’t bother to ‘agree’ to it.

I don’t think there’s any directive or imperative on iNat protocol either way for this but I think eBird strongly discourages doing this.

4 Likes

There probably shouldn’t be, but what is needed from my perspective is a system that accommodates both views, so identifiers aren’t having to memorize who likes what.

3 Likes

I really appreciate how you articulated that, I would identify with that philosophy on the goals of identifying organisms. Unfortunately there are a lot of species and areas in which I’m not sure it’s possible to define the best terminal rank to seek, like in Tilia americana subordinate taxa in the southeast, in which there’s good reason to question whether many of the subspecies and varieties are truly good taxa worth recognizing- on some level subspecies are inevitably just as abstract as parent species, just a category containing x set of organisms.

I can see both of the arguments re: ID to subspecies on a geographic basis and I don’t think there is a single good answer for all cases. The information presented on Anemone multifida var. multifida in this location makes a strong case that ID by geography is appropriate there. I don’t think this is any more likely to generate bad data by way of not looking for alternative taxa than, say, IDing Quercus velutina observations showing lacy sun leaves on the east coast without carefully checking traits to make sure it’s not Quercus ellipsoidalis. Morphologically these two species are a lot closer than many subspecies and some have proposed ellipsoidalis to be a subspecies to be a subspecies of velutina or coccinea. But geographically I can say beyond a reasonable doubt that they won’t be ellipsoidalis.

In my home county where true Quercus ranges were basically never documented, I wouldn’t be nearly so willing to discern by geography- ellipsoidalis is unlikely here, but velutina, coccinea, and palustris classically aren’t “supposed” to be here either. Consideration of geography clearly comes into play here.

5 Likes

In some taxonomic groups (e.g. butterflies) I myself do IDs to subspecies level, based on geography. For the simple reason, that i think that people should learn, about the unique organisms we have here on this pretty Caribbean island.

I must admit that I don’t really understand why one should be against a community identification to subspecies level … I mean the identification to species or genus level is not lost in the process, is it? So any researcher who wants to work on a certain genus or species will find the observations, even if it is identified to a even more arbitary level. On the other hand a observation on genus level will certainly not show up in a search for a subspecies … this means in my opinion that subspecies identification is added value. I personally try to relax about splitters, and people who are able (or think to be able) to identify stuff, that i can not identify … especially as they seem to add value to observations.

I mean … if I upload an observation, I make it available to the public to work with. What will I do, if a scientist e.g. in an published review of a genus, finds that my observation is a different taxon as it is in my personal opinion?

4 Likes

I also would like rare species to retain their conservation status and attendant location obscuring – many rarities are infrataxa, incidentally including the Anemone above. The parent does not have a conservation status, because it’s not a real plant.

2 Likes

Why isn’t it a real plant? All of the ones identified to subspecies are that species as well.
I guess I can see why someone might id subspecies by location if they want a rare subspecies documented. I’m not trying to say the practice should be banned. But I don’t think we should do it by default either nor try to get everyone to do so.

1 Like

One point could be that the subspecies at hand is a Threatened taxon, and might need to be obscured or otherwise given special handling. Even if there is a small chance the subspecies ID is still wrong, I think we would want to err on the side of caution. (Granting all the valid points in the other discussion threads on obscuration protocol.)

2 Likes

I don’t mean to support broadly using location as the only deciding factor. It’s sometimes cut and dried and sometimes useless. My case above is one of the more extreme ones.

In a lot of cases, subspecific rank is a proxy for speciation in progress. In that sense, those varieties and subspecies shouldn’t be equivocated with their parents as a divergence may have started tens of thousands of years ago, hence “not a real plant”

1 Like