As most reading likely know, users can import names to the taxonomy using the “search external providers” option when attempting to suggest an identification - but when the name that want seems lacking from core system.
An explanation i got from @tiwane was that “iNaturalist uses CoL 2012”. I’m sorry to him that i’ve since left it for a couple of months without further comment beyond that chat, but i’ve since been exasperated on a daily basis by noticing when users are importing names from external providers (notably, or perhaps exclusively CoL) but importantly names that do not match with any recent iterations of CoL.
So, to open a discussion. Is iNat still using the version of CoL from 2012? If so, that’s absolutely absurd. While ability of any user to import names from external providers still seems to me a good feature, being able to do so from a source that’s 12 years out of date seems counterproductive. Within the above link, @ cooperj gave a viewpoint from fungi worth noting. However, my concern stems from those for Animalia, where despite many flaws CoL has updated taxonomy on multiple animal lineages over the last 12 years. So why the heck does iNaturalist let users still import from a version of the CoL database that’s so horribly outdated?
We can make curatorial case for why names on such old databases shouldn’t be allowed to be imported, here’s a starter:
Imported taxon goes to ungrafted.
(this seems related to if wider group said to be ‘locked’ but also if the hierarachy is poorly established)
Imported taxon gets misgrafted (seems common with homonyms)
Imported taxon gets grafted but the combination outdated - i.e. a synonym in later studies, and sometimes seems to add the valid combination as a synonym!
Imported taxon is mispelt or wrong suffix
[Edit further] I’d welcome other curators etc add in viewpoint about when and where they see the volunteer curator workload being increased by the external provider(s) being outdated, i.e. leading to the need for curator to step in an edit/annotate what users (mis)create. With addition of new taxa, i’ve often added in links to taxon framework or external sources, but increasingly with recently added external names, then i’m also regrafting, swapping to merge synonyms etc
External providers seem pretty useless for any mollusks I try to add. That’s usually because I’m adding new names or combinations that aren’t in CoL. So I’m for having an updated external provider (WoRMS would be great for many groups), but the current system only adds work in that I have to manually create each name.
Personally, as iNat’s taxonomic backbone “matures,” I would like to see the External Providers option go away altogether, and have all requests for new taxa come in the form of flags for curation. At this point I doubt that the External Providers option is reducing Curator workload very much, if at all.
I do plants, and go straight to POWO to get the useful link.
Or to Google to work around tiny typos, or common names not yet on iNat.
The few times I have tried ‘external providers’ it has been fruitless.
for me personally, as I go to add a new taxon entry? it probably saves me about 10 seconds on average, if the taxon is in the 2012 CoL listings. in terms of across my own and others’ work? it probably adds 30 seconds on average, taking into account outdated taxa that keep getting imported over and over again.
so no, I don’t feel that it’s that useful to keep the option, especially since it is in fact still pointing to the 2012 edition of Catalogue of Life…
I didn’t realize our CoL taxonomy dump was from 2012. If so, that’s definitely not ideal for arthropods, as CoL’s arthropod taxonomy was abyssmal in 2012. Back then they were using several unreliable and self-published databases for input, some of which just did their own synonymies willy-nilly without relying on officially published sources.
Thanks for feedback on this everyone. Usually with our own preferences of taxonomic focus, whether or not such external things have an influence or not is important, so the viewpoints from different angles is welcome.
I would not be against simply discontinuing external import by users from Catalog of Life, but as per the last comment ( [traianbertau), my view from my bias towards arthropods is that continuing to allow users to add names has utility. The great point is they can quickly add a name (many described arthropod species are of course still missing from the iNat scheme), then link their observation - the curation to fix grafting, naming, and links beyond to GBIF etc can come later. However, if they’re imported outdated names/combinations, then i’d suggest that curators stepping in and “fixing the mess” looks very shoddy from those users who e.g. ‘simply want to put a taxon name on their observation’. Increasingly, i’d like to see that IF a casual user can add a taxon name, then curators have potential to get notification that a taxon has been added (perhaps limited to particular taxa of their defined interest), which raises option it can be verified or expanded on, i.e. external links, synonyms, common names etc can be added if the curator wishes to do that.
Recently, i’ve only haphazardly discovered “new names” added by users in particular taxa of my interest - and increasingly from non-curators those are outdated names BECAUSE the CoL scheme is so outdated. Many of the names i see added could be linked externally etc, or more importantly, an increasing percentage which are added by non-curators then need swaps etc as redundant with other names, often with inactivated names, or misspellings, etc, etc.
Well then how to proceed? Am I/are we howling at the wind here, or can we now get some feedback from admin/staff on this?
Until something changes, to circumvent closure of comment due to inactivity, then i’m now aiming occasionally add some notification of various taxa where cutation action flags (edit: “seem like”) arise from the outdated CoL import. Today it’s going to be for the imported brown algae “Kuckuckia spinosa” which for whatever reason that i don’t choose to investigate had mis-grafted under the fish genus Barbus
It’s arguably at best a few minutes of volunteer curation effort to regraft these to accord with modern databases, but it looks core updates by paid staff might be implemented to reduce expections of volunteers
Interesting, that bug of grafting automatic imports somewhere into fish taxonomy has been around for many years. I’m surprised it has never been tracked down.
Random boring case from Booklice, just to prevent closure and expand.
Genus Pericaecilius Mockford, 2000 and species (3x in genus) requested by user in flag. (Sept 2024). Was of course present in the modern CoL 2024 database from authoritative source Psocodea Species File.