Computer vision clean-up (archive)

Earthworms can be ided only when they’re mature, so for any juvenile ided to species you can say it’s wrong. For correct Id you need close pictures of his foreparts (head shape, and generative part, can’t google its English name now) and count of the rings. (from head to the mentioned part and how many rings are covered by it).


this is my boilerplate text for worms:
sadly, immature worms (without clitellum “ring/saddle”) can’t be keyed even to genus, and there are 670 Lumbricidae species. If you look at worm keys, you’ll see that you need:

  • the ring count from the front tip to the clitellum
  • the ring count of the clitellum
  • the arrangements of the setae (rings, lines, etc)
  • a good view of the sexual organs on the underside of the clitellum
    I’d say 99% of iNat worms ID’d to species do not allow for keying in this fashion … Take for example this key for the Great Lakes region (and so therefore not even complete for the whole US).
    SO, most “hamburger mush” worms should be “Oligochaeta”
    and even GOOD images should probably be Lumbricidae, unless they have magnified images.

Right, when I found the key for our region I only could id this one set of my photos: At the same time phone photos from 2 metres get rg of L. terrestris.

I’ve already added this to the wiki, but it could use some clarification.
Basically any orchid in the subtribe Oncidiinae (colloquially known as the “Oncidium” alliance) is ID’d by the computer vision as Oncidium sphacelatum. The overwhelming majority of observations that this happens to (especially the very many cultivated hybrids in this subtribe) are not Onc. sphacelatum but rather one of hundreds of other possible options.

The computer vision shouldn’t go below subtribe level for these, because the taxonomy anywhere below that is a mess.
Also everything in this group is some variation of “yellow and brown flowers” so the AI will just end up getting all the species and genera mixed up anyway.

1 Like

Thanks, this is a species I have some familiarity with. I can’t spot all the mis-ID’s but I just went through now and found a large number of Symphyotrichum sp. mis-ID’ed as this, mostly S. cordifolia, some E. macrophylla, some Oclemena acuminata, some that I think are probalby Doellingeria umbellata, some wildly mis-ID’ed plants from outside the aster tribe, and some I was unsure of.

Got tired of IDing but I may go back to this later. I have been wanting to write ID guides on asters and looking through these would be good practice to prepare me to later do this.


I suggest that the automatic suggestions don’t show Lumbricus terrestris anymore for the reasons you just explained.

1 Like

I added Pholcus phalangoides, for many years only a few species were widely recognised for a big part of the world, now the “AI” suggest this species for almost anything that resembles Pholcus, and people agree, and other people agree with first. Someone with free time and hard nerves should recheck all RG under this taxon and it shoudn’t appear that easily for taxa were close examination of both dorsal and ventral parts (in female) are needed.

1 Like

Add it.

Gonna add Entodon seductrix, AI for some reason loves this moss and suggests it for anything, even Atrichum (that is hard for me, they’re really, really hard to mix up, they’re totally different). From lmost 3k of observations it’s possible that real Entodon is in less than 1/3.

1 Like

I cleaned Salix discolor the Old World, but these pop up every day.


I just finished cleaning up Succinea putris from the entire Americas with the help of a few other people


I added Narcissus pseudonarcissus. There are too many hybrid and variety forms, and also some other species, misidentified onto this taxon.


A post was split to a new topic: Computer vision suggests monotypic genera

I’ve added Panorpa communis (Common European Scorpionfly) which the computer vision seems to be identifying all Panorpa sp. as this in the UK (and I’m guessing other countries too). Of the UK species males can be told apart from a good macro photo showing ventral surface of the genital capsule. Some sources suggest females can be differentiated with a microscope but others suggest dissection is required. It appears the CV is alos suggesting this species in america where it isn’t present as there is the (closed) flag from last year with the following description:

“the AI keeps suggesting American observers Panorpa communis although the species doesn’t occur in America resulting in many wrong IDs. I don’t know if this can be fixed this way but I’ll try”

I wasn’t sure if I should create a new flag or not.

Panorpa can be ided by wing pattern too.


I added Aralia spinosa, which doesn’t occur north of Delaware along the east coast (the trees there are A. elata instead). I’m not sure if Philadelphia gets spinosa, though, so I left it alone

I added the genus Jasminum, it is a hot mess.
I have scrolled through it for less than 15 min and found 15 different genus of plants identified as this (some in research grade), including Rosa, Citrus, Petunia, Oenothera, Primula, Philadelphus, Forsythia etc.


I’m going to add Hexagenia limbata, just look at its map, it’s painful to look at.

I’ve added Clogmia. I usually get it to come up as a suggestion for any Moth-flies I post up…
But Psychodidae are notoriously difficult to take beyond family.


Can I add something which is the inverse of most of the above?
Anthomyiidae desperately need including in a CV update, as a large % of diptera spotted in UK are this family. But also very difficult to go beyond family, so we are unable to reach enough genus / RG observations for them to be counted. This has a roll-on affect of them being placed in incorrect families.

1 Like