Is there a shared etiquette/guideline for ID of species within the genus where there is no visual clue for the correct identification (precise determination possible only dissecting the specimen for instance)? I see differen viewpoints, sometimes people keep the ID at genus level, other times it go…

[image] upupa-epops: I think it is misleading since it implies that a species can be identified from your photos, and that your individual is of that species. 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 al…

[image] charlie: And if the European one ever somehow got introduced no one would ever know because they are only mapped by location… 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…

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 …

[image] kiwifergus: 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! well, still identifies it as not one of the remaining eight. Which in some case is not trivial. Then one could a…

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 t…

[image] edolis: 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”. 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 ca…

[image] upupa-epops: It avoids choosing a technically incorrect ID but still gives more precise information. 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

[image] kiwifergus: That would be like calling a bird a fish so as to exclude the possibility it’s a plant. woah that’s quite a statement! I was obviously talking at genus level, but I understand you are in the mood of ridiculizing. [image] kiwifergus: There has already been a thread on …

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 speci…

Etiquette for ID of species with no visual differences

General

upupa-epops January 17, 2020, 9:56pm 23

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.

Topic		Replies	Views
Choosing not to identify subspecies General	44	5225	March 26, 2019
Species ID errors in difficult taxa? General question	35	2061	September 9, 2022
Lumping Impossible/Hard to ID species General	44	2418	July 2, 2023
Identification Etiquette on iNaturalist - Wiki Tutorials identification , etiquette	203	37116	November 3, 2025
Doesn't iNat commit a basic logical error when an identifier suggests a higher-order taxon? General	74	2083	August 14, 2023

Etiquette for ID of species with no visual differences

Related topics