I noticed a genus on iNaturalist was missing 21 recently-described species. I asked a curator to add them and they said:
“Species usually tend to be added on-demand rather than add all existing names immediately. This way if anything changes we don’t have to address each unnecessary species, and it’s just easier for curators this way I assume.
This is a lot of new species to add… I could add them if there are any observations that fit these new species however.”
Is this the right approach? There are thousands of species on iNaturalist without observations. Why wait for people to be inconvenienced by a species they observed being missing before it is added? Is it so difficult do add species that curators don’t want to do it unnecessarily?
I’d say that is pretty standard. There are many, many species on iNat with zero observations; adding species just because they’ve been described isn’t always a valuable use of time. Remember, curators are all volunteers and responsibly adding a species is going to take a few minutes at minimum, to make sure everything is placed correctly in the taxonomy and sources are properly cited.
Each individual instance doesn’t take that much time, but it does add up, and if that species is just going to sit and not be used, it could end up being a waste of time.
There are way more names out there than volunteer curators can possibly add to iNat. When I go through our mollusk taxon framework mismatches, I’d say at least half the names that need updates have no observations. So I think it’s a bit of a waste of curatorial time to add names that don’t have observations, particularly in groups with higher taxonomic instability that just need to be changed later.
Just because a species has been recently described doesn’t mean everyone will start using the new names. Taxonomy is democratic, some times things get described erroneously. While I agree that there is some “lag time” between iNaturalist’s taxonomic framework and currently accepted frameworks, I think it does make sense in some cases to wait and see if new names are names people are actually going to use.
Agree with others and the curator who is quoted by OP. Adding lots of species without observations is generally not worth the work - iNat’s goal isn’t to be a complete and up-to-the-minute taxonomic reference. It is to be a platform for engagement with nature. If no one is observing these taxa (or maybe they can’t be IDed from photos, etc.), it may not make sense to add them.
There may be some cases where a curator is committed to curating a specific taxon and taking on a good chunk of zero observation taxa, and maybe they’d like to add. But in general, if there aren’t observations of a taxon, I think curators are free to use their discretion about whether to add it or not. There are lots of open taxonomic flags, and their time/effort is likely better spent somewhere else than adding taxa that aren’t being used and will require future effort to maintain.
That may be true in the real world, but it doesn’t seem to be true on this platform. We have had numerous threads complaining that questionable taxon changes are being imposed on everyone.
It is already extremely challenging keeping up with taxonomic changes on iNat. If we had a full taxonomy, it would be impossible. Better to limit it to the taxons that are actually being used, IMO.
I addition to what others have said, a lag time between a species being described and a taxonomic name proposed (or even assigned) and it being added to any database is not a bad thing.
There is often a problem with people, institutions, and governments really wanting a new species name that they’ve chosen to be attributed to them, and in a lot of cases the species name is premature.
Personally I’d be in favor of a year or two at least between the assigning of a new species name and it being added to iNat (or any other database) in order to give some time to sort out messes. Obviously there would be some exceptions, but in my opinion in most cases this delay would be a good thing.
At least for plants, the delay in POWO importing from IPNI, then evaluating the taxonomy optionally, means that it can be years before a new or revised name reaches iNaturalist. Not a bad thing necessarily, however iNaturalist lagging behind national databases can require a dose of extra caution from uploaders and identifiers.
I’m not sure what taxonomic group you’re referring to but every plant genus I’ve studied, at least those genera I’ve looked at in depth, had a least one species that probably shouldn’t have been added in the first place. Some genera have numerous problematic species. Hybrids are especially troublesome. A bit of conservative action on the part of the curator is probably a good thing. On the other hand, a fair number of flags I’ve submitted have gone unimplemented, so I feel your frustration. There’s a middle ground in there somewhere.
Just this morning, I got a slew of notifications for the Bark Anole, Anolis distichus. Now, I had previously withdrawn my IDs of this species when another identifier disagreed and identified them as the Dominican Graceful Anole, Anolis ingigularis. Well, as of about a month ago, the Dominican Graceful Anole was reduced to a subspecies, Anolis distichus ssp. ignigularis. I restored my original IDs.
This only one of several times I have seen a new taxon reverted to an old taxon.
Dont forget iNaturalist is not only about pictures and sounds. It might not be used enough, but there are also checklists. Before going to new places I try and find checklists for it, create the place if it does not exist, and then upload the checklists to see what is there, to try and get an idea of how to identify the species (and subspecies and varieties) and endemics, but also to see what has not been seen that I might add. Checklists are great, except that often the names are not in the iNat dictionary and thus fall in the cracks.
Often curators are totally unsympathetic, almost like they dont want localized and remote species on iNaturalist.
So dont forget, many people use iNat for many reasons, using many tools and tricks. But going to a place where iNat curators refuse to include the local endemics up front can be quite frustrating when one is trying to find out what they are and what they look like.
