Etiquette for ID of species with no visual differences

If things were this way, I think iNat should not allow picture galleries for the affected species, don’t you think so?
If they are allowed I assume there is a thought behind (no possibility to challenge the ID).
Leaving the ID at genus level without sharing link which document the potential mixup, just let more people uselessly looking around for a solution to the riddle.
Moreover, in case only a couple of species are listed out of many, having a visual reference visually correct I think is a better option anyway.
Think of cases where the local documented distribution of species is limited to one of the two involved by the ambiguity.

well, I assume that in these cases a study need to engage some expert in the field, instead of being based on ID by iNat… with no offence meant to the IDer (me included) who just are doing their best.
But I think that there should be an etiquette guideline discussed thoroughly and maybe put to vote as a canvas suggestion to IDers and which is just a recommendation, non mandatory.
Just to share all the point of views in a thread and have a people read it and take their stance based on their understanding and view of iNat.

If it is possibly 1 of 2 species in a genus of say 10, and there is no basis to say it is one over the other, then why are you picking one? Genus is a valid id!

As for photo, if it doesn’t show you what you need in order to determine, then don’t. But if someone who makes an observation was able to look at the specimen with more detail say with a field loupe, then THEY could put an id to species. Some with a great level of experience with the taxa might see secondary characters that might suffice in tipping a “could be either” id into a “95% sure it’s this”.

It really doesn’t have to be any more complicated than “id as you can confidently call it yourself”, and either ignore what others put or have a conversation with them about it. The only “right answer” on an id is what the CID algorithm determines it to be, and that relies on YOU (meaning each of us) being HONEST about what you can confidently call it.

[Edit] I’ll add that if you are making a courser ID, please only explicitly disagree if you can see evidence (range included) that it can’t be the current CID. This is an ongoing issue until they get around to re-wording that danged dialog!

9 Likes

well, still identifies it as not one of the remaining eight. Which in some case is not trivial. Then one could add a note like “might also be, less likely xxx”.
This in my view is much more informative than a “Genus” only ID. Conveys you have restricted the chance to 2 cases out of 10, and you are picking what you think is more likely (questionable pick or frequency based pick)

3 Likes

Talking about pines I even have no idea which traits would be ok to say it’s not an introdused species. P. sylvestris alone is so diverse that it would make a person spent half of the day thinking about each tree they met. And when I saw P. nigra for me it was the same pines as always, I just knew that there’s the species that exists here or that’s the place with saved population of subsp.

1 Like

This is the reason for the suggestions for complexes, species groups, slashes, etc. either as official “taxa” options or as observation fields. It avoids choosing a technically incorrect ID but still gives more precise information.

4 Likes

That would be like calling a bird a fish so as to exclude the possibility it’s a plant.

If you can see reason to call it one over the other, then do so. If you can’t, then don’t. Seriously… It’s that simple.

There has already been a thread on etiquette. Perhaps review old topics before starting new ones?

5 Likes

unfortunately I don’t think this can be a catch-all solution
Taking Araniella for instance there are cases of

  • might be a or b, not c
    . might be b or c, not a

woah that’s quite a statement! I was obviously talking at genus level, but I understand you are in the mood of ridiculizing.

I’d gladly read it, if you point it out. Tried with search with no luck.
Maybe some mechanism to make this sticky would be a good thing. Unfortunately unavailable at the moment, as far as I know.

Sigh. I have been inactive on iNaturalist for about a year or two, in large part because of this issue. I work with lichens, which are organisms frequently requiring stereo- and compound-microscopic examination to arrive at a determination, especially lichens referred to as crustose. With some specimens, a certain identification even to genus is impossible without dissection and sometimes chemical testing. It is alarming how many iNat observations are identified to species based on a photograph.

Somewhere in the thread above, someone said “Moreover, since it cannot be demonstrated as wrong, it is not misleading iNatters with other identifications.” In my opinion, an identification must include enough information so that others can identify it as either right or wrong, based on the evidence provided. If right, great! If wrong, the observer must be able to learn from their mistake. Without this learning, incorrect information will spread throughout the database, because it cannot be demonstrated to be wrong.

Without adequate information, an identification to a particular level is indeed misleading, as it indirectly informs the observer that their specimen can be identified to that level based on only a photographic examination.

Range and/or distribution can sometimes be informative. In the case of lichens, an extension of range is sometimes exactly that. Other times it merely reflects our ignorance and inexperience of that organism’s true range.

Species groups are useful and informative; they also allow an observer to realize that they have taken the ID process as far as any expert might. But iNaturalist is a taxonomically-correct database; can we call something a “group”, and have iNat accept it as such? I do not know…

Humbly yours, Tom

23 Likes

Not at all. It could be a flying fish. If the important thing is to exclude that it could be one of the other 8, then this is exactly the same thing.

It is not a requirement to exclude the other 8 as possibilities.

1 Like

I agree, and we’re glad you’re back!

5 Likes

That’s how science work, you don’t call something a certain species JUST only on the fact it’s more possible between 2 species that occur there. And stating otherwise is wrong and unhelpful, and can create bigger problems.

5 Likes

With an observation field you could have any custom options you want, such as a/b and b/c. I know cases like this can occur, for example eBird has options for Pomarine/Parasitic Jaeger and Parasitic/Long-tailed Jaeger, in addition to the generic jaeger sp. (and skua/jaeger sp.) option. Those are all options in this custom observation field, but because there are few options in many places it’s not a whole lot more useful than the official iNat option Stercorarius sp. (perhaps why no one has used those observation field options).

5 Likes

Can’t have tried very hard:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/identification-etiquette-on-inaturalist-wiki/1503

there is a search icon in the top right near your profile/alerts. Click on it and enter your search terms there, and it will find threads/topics that match.

1 Like

In general understand your pain, but I think it should be solved at iNat level by labelling a genus or species or even families as not identifyable without non-microscopic pictures or lab analysis.
And have it updated by someone in deep knowledge of literature.
As for the right of wrong I feel is a difference between “right unless proven wrong (which cannot)” or “wrong unless proven right” approach.
I understand that on a scientific point of view, only the second is acceptable.
Still, iNat should take a position on the matter. In case this scientific approach is confirmed, picture collection for those specific species should not be allowed or managed differently, in my view.
A warning? Simply a specific icon beside the affected species?
Something can be done.
But staying at genus level because there is a potential ambiguity on 2 species out of 10 is a lot of loss of information.
Under a scientific point of view, I imagine a scholar would have no problem in merging the two set of obs in the same bucket considering also other difficult to access info (such as studies on actual distribution of each species)

You ask a question, and many people have taken the time to answer it, even though you could have easily, as demonstrated, found the answer yourself. And yet you seem intent on arguing your point beyond reason. If you feel iNat should do this, then you could fork off your own version of iNat and get as pedantic over the IDs as you like.

Why should pictures be excluded? If you make a photo and collect specimen the photo definitely belongs to the species and should be shown on taxon page.

1 Like

thanks, I was looking something specific on the topic of management of species ambiguity, but good try making your point thanks.

I simply entered the first word of the topic title as you put it. Really wasn’t that hard!