Descendant taxon has more observations than its parent

Bug Reports
1

Platform: PC, Windows

App version number, if a mobile app issue:

Browser, if a website issue: Firefox

URLs (aka web addresses) of any relevant observations or pages:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?taxon_id=1066703

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?taxon_id=1040847

Screenshots of what you are seeing:

error
error1028Ă—1542 282 KB

Description of problem:

numbers of observations seem wrong here (not sure it is a bug or something else)

Order Scalpellomorpha has 13218 observations and the taxon below it

Superfamily Lepadoidea has 14048 observations, see screenshot (impossible)

for the same Superfamily Lepadoidea, the website given above shows 13798 observations (impossible, too)

1 Like
2

I can reproduce for “Asterinae”:

https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1066179-Asterinae#taxonomy-tab

image
image1571Ă—691 233 KB

There is shown only 34225 Observations.

But: in the link-preview, which is shown during writing the answer, the count is correct with 38321 obs.

image
image930Ă—182 48.7 KB

I have no idea, if there is a logical reason for…

3

In those screenshots, the top right stat counts NeedsID+ResearchGrade and the link preview counts all observations (includes Casual):

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?taxon_id=1066179&verifiable=true
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?taxon_id=1066179&verifiable=any

4 Likes
4

Presumably an indexing bug caused from a taxon or ancestry change from one of the children.

5

I found several other ones. The most extreme is:

Patellida order 24.765
Patelloidea superfamily 3.215
Patellidae family 24.763

would be goood to have these all fixed somehow. Thank you

reference https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/152969-Patelloidea

desc taxon bug
desc taxon bug1078Ă—1815 435 KB

6

I also reported this issue.

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/observations-are-being-shown-even-though-they-belong-to-a-taxon-that-i-have-excluded-from-the-search/41989

Here are the Lepadoidea observations that apparently don’t belong to Scalpellomorpha.

7

This is almost certainly from some recent changes to the ancestry of this group. I have tried reindexing the group by resaving, and every day a few more seem to be added. But it’s going very slowly.