Display Genus above section when suggesting an ID

I couldn’t find a feature request that dealt with this but this has been bothering me during recent identifications. When putting in a genus with multiple sections and subsections, section seems to be the taxonomic rank listed first, and are searched off of their parent genus. When imputing a genus like Hypericum, Oenothera, or Euphorbia the autofill seems to be full of section level groupings, and its not until I have written the entire genus name that the genus moves to the top. It’s not a huge deal, but I have miss-clicked on section a number of times mistaking it for the genus I was intending to ID the observation to.

I don’t fully understand what rank is displayed first, but it seems like it ranks them somehow in a way that is not fully clear and I’m not sure if there’s some quirk to how section is displayed or if it is an intentional functionality. I personally prefer the display order from the main search bar, which seems to rank things from largest unit to smallest, but I can see some IDers not loving that method. Maybe the best answer is to not search sections and subsections off their parent genus.

Not quite the exact case, but a similar issue that really irks me.
If I start typing ‘koala’ into the ID box and reach ‘koal’, the top option is somehow ‘koalas’ (the family, which is monotypic anyway) rather than ‘koala’
image

The order here makes no sense to me either. Logically if the order of the suggestions was dictated by something, it should be alphabetical? Obviously that’s not the case, so what is the factor here dictating the order?

Similarly, if I type the full word ‘koala’, the species still doesn’t appear as the top option, but indeed the genus is the top one:
image

Nonsensical behaviour again, because the genus doesn’t even have ‘koala’ associated as a common name for English (only in Polish??)
image
image

2 Likes

Something simmilar happened here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/use-consistent-sort-order-for-results-of-name-searches/8640

This “Koala” case is related to discussion elsewhere about monotypic groups: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/dont-suggest-genus-for-monotypic-genera-computer-vision/4361/17

I’d love for that other issue to be sorted too, but I think this is a bit different? My case is related to when I actually start typing manually vs. using the AI suggestions based on the photo

Ah, you’re right. They are conceptually related but they are separate coding issues.