For those of you who do a lot of identifying, what are some of the hardest organisms to identify to species and why?
1 Like
I struggle a bit with family Typhlopidae, the blind snakes. They all pretty much look like earthworms with scales.
https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/observations/250883925
2 Likes
I don’t do enough identifying . . . yet!
I think fungi are often frustrating.
Both for identifiers who are trying to be helpful, and for observers who are hoping to achieve research grade and to “put a name” on the mushroom they found.
There are a lot of forum threads about this. Here is one:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/not-getting-any-ids-for-my-photos-of-insects-and-fungi/6197/4
5 Likes
I have zero idea on how to tell apart black-capped and Carolina chickadees, so when identifying chickadees I stick to more northern places.
Maybe you should change this part? Already fungi have been mentioned, and struggles happen within all kingdoms.
3 Likes
Thanks! Changed it.
3 Likes
Little brown lizards in the Amazon. Of the 300+ species of lizards that occur in the Amazon basin, only about 55 are in the CV. New observations accumulate so slowly that zero Amazon lizards have been added either of the padt two models. The vast majority are difficult for that reason alone, but add in Gymnophthalmidae or Alopoglossidae, many of which are small and brown, and it just makes it that much harder. Then there are the couple dozen species in the Amazon that have never been observed on iNat, so good luck finding a visual for comparison. Plus, some of those things are maybe 2.5 cm (1”) long so good luck finding detailed enough photos for ID purposes. Next there’s the fact that the published ranges of many of those are educated guesses meaning it’s really hard to rely on location to ID. Oh, and because there are vast tracts of land that are off limits or have never been explored and there are huge gaps in distributions that will likely never be filled. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the challenge, but sometimes I feel good getting something to genus or even family. Species? You gotta be kidding me.
10 Likes
All of Cortinarius unless its really unmistakable like C. violaceus. And with Inocybe, why even try? It is an absolutely massive genus (so is Cortinarius), and I have no clue how to ID them. IMO, they get a bad rap for being boring brown mushrooms. But I think they’re pretty and interesting!
5 Likes
I’ve identified some Argiopae aurantiae et keyserlingi for others, after finding an A. aurantia myself, but there’s another species that looks a lot like A. keyserlingi, and I’ve found myself staring on the dots on the ventral abdomen and wondering if that difference marks another species.
Several species are named for being hard to identify, such as the confused flour beetle, which looks a lot like another species of flour beetle. See http://curioustaxonomy.net/etym/otheretym.html .
3 Likes
Chironomids, particularly Orthocladiinae, Chironomus, and few other subgroups. For Chironomus just take a look here, click on a few species.
https://www.chironomidae.net/Martin/NACytfiles/NAChiron.html
Orthocladiinae is just… There’s a reason why there’s only 81 species observed on INaturalist out of the few 1000s of Orthocladiinae there are. They are overwhelmingly very much not very IDable at all from normal images.
5 Likes
Flies with black and white stripes are zebra flies
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/132223-Anthomyia
But then there are others with those stripes that are not Anthomyia.
Back to it’s a fly (with stripes)
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/250714514
4 Likes
Most mosses are not IDable without microscopy or extensive experience and knowledge of their ecology.
That said, 95% of them are quite easy to deteremine with a microscope (if you know how to make cross sections)
4 Likes
Indeed, mosses and lichens were the first things that came to my mind. They are not that hard if you’re the observer and took field notes on substrate/habitat, have access to a microscope/chemical tests, and know what you need to look for to key them out. However, most iNat observations are just pictures without notes and often blurry or too far away to see details. So from an identifier perspective, it’s impossible to get them to species.
4 Likes
First thought was slime molds. I’m still not sure what they are. Or how smart they are.
2 Likes
Someday, when I know a little more about mosses and liverworts, I’d like to join a group of identifiers sorting through bryophytes, in the hopes of teaching both observers and the AI what is needed for identifying to species or even just genera. There are species I’m quite comfortable IDing for myself when I observe them, but I’m not yet at the point where I feel I can do the same for other observers. Maybe after next year’s field season.
ETA: Maybe after two or three more field seasons for Sphagnums. I have to restrain myself from taking every observation of a peatmoss that is IDed to species but shows no close-ups whatsoever, much less leaf or stem sections, and kicking it back to genus. I think that might be correct, but I’m not sure yet.
I’m just waiting for someone to say carabids.
Pterostichus (Hypherpes) in particular have caused my dad to classify all beetles regardless of colour: black beetle.
3 Likes
Green metallic calyptrate flies!
Most often CV would suggest Calliphoridae such as Lucilia, but there are green metallics in other families and genera.
4 Likes
If the question is “hardest organisms to identify from photos or low resolution macrophotographs” a good chunk of the Tree of Life qualifies. Among insects Simuliidae (black flies, the main topic of my career) are notably hard to identify from photographs. They were among the first to be identified on a genetics basis, in the 1950s, using the barcode-like patterns of the giant chromosomes of the larval salivary glands. Identification of the adults involves dissection and observation of the genital parts at high magnification, which often will lead you at best to one of the many species complexes determined by recent genetic studies.
3 Likes
I recently observed a Genus Eurybunus. After my original ID was corrected, the man who helped me out gave me some feedback. He said “Eurybunus is in dire need of a taxonomic revision. There are a dozen or so undescribed species. The species that are described were done so poorly in the mid-1900s and we do not really know the full range of those species. As of now, I am just looking at color patterns on the body to form preliminary groups, so your photo is sufficient. That’s a long answer just to say we cannot assign Eurybunus to species, and 99.9% of the time I leave them at genus level.” Basically that means that this species is hard, if not impossible, to ID to species.
1 Like
Seems as though Woodpecker Flies don’t get much attention or gets to species level.
1 Like
Mollusks. There is such a variety that it can be such a pain to id them
4 Likes