Not sure you understand what I am saying.
I am thinking of IDing at genus level since the obs pictures one of two species in the genus that, as confirmed in literature, cannot be told apart without microscopy. And there is no microscopy in the observation.
2 Likes
Then it has got to be a language barrier thing, because I see you arguing for IDing to species level if it helps rule out other taxa:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/etiquette-for-id-of-species-with-no-visual-differences/9513/21
What I meant is that picking the most probable one was in my view the one at max info added to the community.
Then the discussion has evolved and I tried to find a workable criteria to embrace the genus level one to avoid annoying the ones who feel mad about species Ids in that situation.
The hypothesis I advanced was genus Id(nasty button)+Holding bin+not improvable flag to replace my initial approach.
Even earlier than that post I believe you had a good answer to your questions:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/etiquette-for-id-of-species-with-no-visual-differences/9513/15
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/etiquette-for-id-of-species-with-no-visual-differences/9513/16
and I did eventually find you the wiki on etiquette that you asked forâŚ
Please do review these two posts, and the wiki, and decide if it is worth continuing this debate. Fields and comments can accomodate a considerable flexibility when it comes to such things as complexes and so on.
Iâve run into this issue because there are two species of Plethodon and two species of cottontail rabbit endemic to my area, and they are very hard to distinguish from one another, especially if youâre not a hyperfocused specialist. I think it would be great if, for certain species, the observation could be considered research-grade when identified only to a species level.
Hmmm⌠still puzzled.
I am not sure everybody vouching for a genus level id is on the same page.
I am thinking that basically, considering the variations in visual characters of the 500 or so Araniella I have examined, where I got the impression there is a bucket of different characteristics which usually (let me underline usually) are in a certain mix in a species (with exceptions though!!!) then only DNA could tell. So what should we do stop at genus level because visually you cannot prove its 100% right? Should we accept that 99% is still acceptable (as for instance there are rare cases of a species looking alike another)?
In the end.i feel in any case you have to accept a concept of likelihood.
And having a technical mindset it makes me difficult to believe that I should not identify at species Id just because it might also remotely be something different.
Trying to extrapolate a guideline but it looks really hard.
Right, as a curator do you mean I should review the hundreds of Araniella cucurbitina as Araniella genus since opisthographa can exceptionally have 4 spots only as cucurbitina does?
Just confirm your view, thanks.
Oh, forgot to mention, neglecting the fact that there seem to be no global consensus on what the exceptions might be like.
I certainly ID some butterfly observations here on the Caribbean islands to subspecies, that were on the mainland identifiable to genus only. I do this in cases where there is only one subspecies in the genus known from the islands. These IDs are testable hypothesis (at least with additional field samples) and therefore scientifically sound and valid.
Well and in case somebody finds another species or subspecies in that genus on these islands, they have at least nice GBIF data showing that their find is exciting and unexpected ;). So what do we want more?
1 Like
Regardless of whether I am a curator or not, I am saying that you review them if you want to. If you do, then treat each one individually. If you see it as species, then ID species⌠if you see it as possibly one of two species, but definitely genus, then ID as genus. Simple.
and just to clarify, my comments have no basis in my curator status. I have been on iNaturalist for nearly 5 years and I have learnt considerably about what iNat was created for, and how it works, over that time. My comment about your 3 months, is that I spent the first 4 years in iNat with a very different view about what iNat was created for than I have now. So I am suggesting âtry and understand why things are the way they areâ before suggesting changing them to something else based on a preconceived idea of what you think is happening.
Your reply to Mreith at least gets to the heart of this, I think⌠certainty level or confidence.
Every ID you make is subject to a possibility of being wrong⌠I personally work on a 95% confidence level. If I am 95% or greater certain it is a particular species, I put that ID. If I am only 40% certain of species, but 95%+ on genus, then I put genus. If I canât be sure between two different genus (ie 50:50 or 50%) then I put family. If there is a complex group that encompasses all the possibilities that I perceive it could be, then I would call that 95%+ confident of that complex group, so I would put it.
There are some groups I would like a complex group for, but even though I am a curator, I am not going to create that without conversation with those other iNatters that have expertise and vested interest in the matter.
When I ID, I donât care that much about what the resulting CID becomes. I put my case forward with my ID, and if it is different to what other people put, then I will usually comment with my reasons for my view.
They are welcome to change their positions or share with me their reasons for their positions. If they do so, then I consider that extra information and I change my position if it is relevant to do so. I have no problems with going back over past IDs and changing them if I am given new information, and often I actively seek it.
2 Likes
You should be confident that your choice is accurate. That means different things for different people; for some itâs 100% (if thatâs possible), for others itâs 95%. Itâs difficult to make a specific guideline because itâs subjective and changes from taxon to taxon. But Iâm glad when there are other people identifying the same taxa as I am because it means we have different confidence levels and can negogiate it together and hopefully get something more accurate than if I do it by myself and start getting overconfident.
Also take into account the system youâre operating; how the community ID, computer vision, other people etc. are affected by your ID. If you give a species level ID, and the observer agrees with your ID (which is sort of a cultural[?] problem on iNat), then it will become Research Grade and other identifiers are significantly less likely to see the observation. When I am learning a group Iâm especially hesitant to give species IDs just for this reason, because thereâs less chance that someone who knows better will see it and correct me.
7 Likes
Things get interesting when, with the insect apocalypse taking place, some species might disappear in some countries. I wonder how disappearance is handled as a criteria to write a species off from a given place.
If the probability of the species level ID being wrong is low, as it seems to be in your example, then i personally would not âcorrectâ to genus. Just my 2 cents.
Reviewing hundreds of observations is generally a great idea though! I would choose a genus where IDs are less controversial ;). There are enough research grade observations out there, that are obviously wrong and identifiable to species.
I even found a photo of a bird lately that was uploaded twice with location data of two different countries and both observations were research grade - for two different species :D.
5 Likes
Yes, itâs simple, but I also try to consider that this is a beautiful platform, that a lot of people me included try to promote it and contribute to make it even more robust and consider that getting just at genus level is a put off for newcomers because they come to think âanyway is too complex for any conclusion, so whatâs the point?â
This is vulgar, I know, but again it is one of the two souls of iNat and I was looking for a workable compromise. To put everything together.
Yes, you are right telling that I am new of this platform, but still, looking at the interest on the topic and different views, looks like there is a hole functionally not covered which is for sure annoying experts whose contribution is so important.
In an industry this would be perceived as a gap which requires temporary workaround, unified approach and when possible long term fixes. In the end this is a platform with deep connection to academic world. If taxa can be handled, also this can be handled properly. At least I feel so.
I donât think this should neglected or overlooked or not discussed openly.
In quality itâs named VOC
Yes, is a very good exercise and very instructive. Controversial genuses are important though, there is the real value of the time spent. If you think Araniella is hard⌠Well, I have just embarked on Chrysopidae :D
2 Likes
I review all NZ spiders, even the RG ones that are no longer in Needs ID⌠not because I am an expert on spiders, nor because I am feeling responsible on âfixingâ any mistakes. I do so because I have an interest in spiders! If I see an ID that looks âwrongâ, I put my ID and state why. Sometimes I frame it in a question âWhy do you think it is that speciesâ, to which they might give me reasons and refer to resources that I didnât know existed! It all helps to learn about the species! If I think they are unlikley to respond or change their position (assuming I think I have a reasonable argument) then I might tag in other identifiers to give their opinions. It is like a vote situation, and the best way to get the right outcome can sometimes be to get more voters!
Anyway, we had a situation here in NZ with a spider that was unknown to us all, and even those that I would consider to be the paramount NZ experts on spiders were unsure, and the general concensus was that it was Trite parvula. Searching online there were images labelled as Trite parvula, and even a published study on mating behaviours that clearly gave the ID as Trite parvula. Only, it wasnât! I found an obscure reference somewhere on the net to the effect that it was thought Bryant had been mistaken in her description, perhaps specimens had labels mixed up, but that piqued my curiosity. I trawled the literature and sure enough, Bryant described a spider that was 2mm at itâs largest extent of length range, but what we were identifying were definitely 5mm and up. After considerable review of literature, I and a few other iNatters came to the conclusion that what we had in our observations was Hypoblemmum albovitattum. We held that position for quite a while, and were even challenged on it by Lek Kauv in Australia. Without specific literature to counter the position we had come to, we held the position of H. albovitattum. Then last year a review of the species complex was undertaken in Australia, and finally we had our âofficialâ position! H albovitattum was re-IDed as H. scutulatum and our observations had to be manually re-IDed as H. griseum. So our understanding of what things are is changing all the time. Even as experts, nothing is certain. All you can be truly sure of is your ID being correct as you understand that concept at that time. Others might have a better understanding than you. I have had examples that by genitalia are clearly species 1, but visual characters given in the description in the literature would suggest it is species 2, so even within the one primary document, itâs impossible to say with absolute certainty âthis is the species you have there in that photoâ.
This bipolarity in iNatâs soul, as you put it, is the heart of what makes iNat so successful. It bridges the gap between scientists and general public. This simplicity that I keep referring to, is that the focus is on the DISCUSSION, not on the ID. Unlike a museum, where one expert comes though and calls everything a name as he sees it, and then another expert years later does the same thing and changes the names to something else⌠iNat is different. We each call it what we think it is and then discuss the differences of opinion. And it is incredible the amount of learning that eventuates because of that.
7 Likes
I am not a curator or scientist or researcher, and I am probably not understanding most of this discussion, but I am going to briefly throw my two cents in here. It never occurred to me that iNaturalist might not want the photos to show everything necessary to have confidence in a species-level ID. I have always appreciated it when I identify something to species and someone else bumps it up higher and tells me that it could also be some other similar species in my area. One of those was cottontail rabbits, mentioned above. Once someone pointed out that photos of a live animal werenât really going to distinguish them, I happily called all of mine by genus alone. And I just bumped my only Solidago canadensis observation up to genus after reading about it in this thread. What Iâve always felt is that iNat could use more instruction rather than more confirmations. I like accuracy more than Research Grade observations and life lists, even though I will never use the observations in science. Thanks to everyone who has ever taken the time to tell me why my IDs should be bumped up to genus, family, or beyond. Thatâs how Iâve learned from all of you.
22 Likes
But if we just had a guideline⌠We would not lose any of that and probably we would frustrate less academics.
Who are a reason why we can learn so much and have more chances to improve accuracy.
And honestly they (+experts of course) are the one I am most grateful for as they explain why they pick an id, which does not happen usually. I always try to motivate my pick when not trivial, which sometimes triggers interesting exchanges 
funny⌠I am most grateful to the observers who share what they are seeing :)
Thatâs not to say I am ungrateful of the experts though.
Perhaps a better âgratefulnessâ would be to iNat for bringing together both!
Donât tell me! I had a similar problem with Tipula berteii on a reputable source. In the end an enthomologist with some time and patience discovered the picture taken as a reference had the species name miscopied from the source. Hilarious, isnât it?
OMG⌠the guideline has been stated over and over again. Why do you keep going backwards?
ID as you feel confident based on the evidence available.
Itâs not unlike museum specimens in that regard, many experts would ID something as a genus and not put a species. If they were allowed to pull a leg off and blender it for a dna sample, they might put species⌠but that is making things too complicated for the iNat observation⌠keep it simple! iNat observations are not museum specimens, the data is what it is, and science can choose to use it or lump it!