How much expertise should we have when identifying?

[mmmiller]

As someone who benefits from suggestions, I appreciate this sort of approach. As I learn more about the organisms that fascinate me, I realize some are fairly easy to identify to species - i.e. Northern Cardinal. Others are less so: spiders, midges, etc.

So, for my own purposes, I know that I can work hard at determining which kind of sparrow that is and I can get better at that. But I also know (at my level of interest and expertise), knowing that is a ‘non-biting midge’ or a ‘type of wolf spider’ is about as good as it’s going to get for my observations.

I love sedges! They seem to be blooming right now. Thanks for being a sedgehead! My sedge observations may not make Research Grade but I am still personally learning about them when you (and/or others) take the time to make comments and share your knowledge. Thanks for that. :-)

[matthewholden1]

Definitely this! At higher taxonomic orders there is no risk of the tentative ID you give being falsely accepted, and being confirmed as research grade, and indeed identifying things to class, order, even family, can lead to the right people looking at the observation.

[lotteryd]

@amzamz

Now, if people are very strict and cautions, it will be labelled as “Lepidoptera” (could possibly be a moth?) and the observation can be found within 270,000 other observations! If the observer is sure it is really a butterfly and not a day flying moth: “Papilionoidea” reduces it to 138,000 other observations. This is obviously not very motivationg to scan through those numbers of pictures to find what you want!

I can add a reassurance about big-looking numbers: Many id’ers start in their local area, so to them a pile of just Papilionoidea out of Lepidoptera may still be a useful narrowing down, because they will just see their local sliver of the 138K. So, any extra distinction can help, even a still pretty coarse one.

(Relatedly I happened to send a set of years-old Lep > Pap nudges recently and saw it made a difference in some getting to species after all this time- amzamz I think you helped on a number of those, thanks! :) )

[kmagnacca]

Yep, this is a good approach that I also use a lot. With my own observations of insects, a lot of the time I know the species because I collected it afterward and identified it based on characters that you can’t see in the photo. Hopefully that doesn’t lead people to identify other things based on just looking like them! Sometimes when identifying others’ you can see a particular small characteristic that allows species level ID for certain, and I’ll mention what it is. And also if it’s not visible, so people know what to look for next time.

[sedgequeen]

You don’t need to be a scientist or specialist to identify things. You do need to know enough to have some idea where your limits are, both geographically and taxonomicly. For example, there are additional Eschscholzia species in southern California, so I confidently ID E. californica from northern California to BC, but am less likely to put a name on the plants elsewhere and certainly not if the flowers are kind of small and yellow (though E. californica can do that).

And I don’t know about you, but I learn by being corrected. I thought I knew how to distinguish the Vinca species, for example. I was corrected a lot and so I stopped. Then I posted a couple of my own and looked them up and now I feel I can identify Vinca if the right features show up in the photos. It’s all a process.

[karen5lund]

I just had the most wonderful experience. After IDing some unknowns and trying to tweak a few local observations to RG, I noticed some feathers that have been posted and remembered seeing a project just for feathers.

Yesterday I left comments on some of the feather observations suggesting they join the feather project and submit their observation. Today I got notice that an observation that had been languishing since October was added to the Found Feathers project and, with help from folks who know their stuff, is now Research Grade!

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/33965180#

[JeremyHussell]

If you join the Found Feathers project, you can add other people’s observations of feathers to the project yourself.

[jeanphilippeb]

@dep I agree with both of your “contradictory” comments!

For instance, I used to put the ID Erythrostemon mexicanus on every observation in California or Arizona showing bipinnate leaves compatible with this species, because I went to the conclusion that this species is very common there. From your 1st comment, I understand that what I did may be bad. On the contrary, some other identifiers would ID such observations as tribe Caesalpinieae. But if we always do that, we may end up with too many observations with an ID at the tribe level, not appealing for future reviews, as explained in your 2nd comment.

I also used to put the ID Erythrostemon gilliesii on every observation that shows leaves compatible with this species. I do that because I noticed that this species has leaves with specific features (I don’t have the vocabulary to explain it precisely) and up to now I didn’t encounter an observation with such leaves that is for sure something else than this species. As a conclusion, I have no objective reason not to ID such observations as Erythrostemon gilliesii. (Up to the day I will see a counter example, in that case I would have to review again all Erythrostemon gilliesii observations, which I would do actually, should the case happen). (It actually happened that I reviewed again all observations of a species, but I forgot which one).

It happened also that I had to correct some of my genus Senna identifications at the species level. I don’t regret my mistakes because I learnt from other people and later I could either remove or correct my wrong IDs. On my way to learn the Senna species, I also corrected errors from other identifiers (and errors in some flora websites). It is a constructive trial/error method. But in some cases I gave up trying to ID at the species level, in particular for Senna species in South America with leaves with 2 pairs of leaflets (Senna papillosa and several others), in that case I comply with your 1st comment. In that case, I used to ID at the genus Senna level and then add this comment: “Senna papillosa or one of the other species with similar leaves (with 2 pairs of asymetrical leaflets) and flowers”.

Sometimes, I post comments in observations having already an ID at the species level, to propose 2 or 3 different species and asking which one it is. For instance here. Sometimes I give up, or just trust other people, when it is too difficult to find reliable information on the web. Presently, I am still very unsure about what Senna versicolor is.

Note also that I removed all pictures from the Senna versicolor taxon page, except one, for simplicity (easier to keep consistent, with a single picture) and because that picture only looked significantly different from all other Senna species. (Note that this picture is from an observation that still “Needs ID”, it is not yet “Research Grade”).

BTW, cleaning taxon pages is a significant part of the identification work, I think.

Sometimes, when there are different species in a taxon page at the species level, it takes time to find out what is what actually.

I consider that iNaturalist is a location to ID organisms based on pictures. The observer may have additional information that the identifier will never have, nevertheless the identifier is supposed to propose an ID based only on what is available to him, the pictures. And this is precisely what I do with Senna species. Although I have never seen live most of them, I do ID them.

Basically, identifying is observing and putting together in the same set all observations that show the same species. And basically the name of the species is the name given by the 1st observer. Little by little, I learnt what this species or this other one is, half empirically (from what I see on the pictures), half from written knowledge (such as “Senna marylandica pods have rectangular cells” ; see also here and here how misleading this statement can be, although very useful). And this is how I got to put the ID Erythrostemon gilliesii on every observation that shows leaves compatible with this species, and how I learnt to ID many Senna species. I think the key point is not being right, it is keeping consistent (always put the same species in the same set) from one ID to another, from one observation to another.

[jeanphilippeb]

Another concrete example is given by my ID on this observation:

I put this ID Cenostigma pluviosum because my notes remind me that this is “the” species with this look in South America (distribution map). If it were in North/Central America, I would put the ID Cenostigma eriostachys (distribution map).

In the particular case of this observation, the inflorescence looks a bit different than usual. So I further checked what other tribe Caesalpinieae species there can be in the region:

Taking into account the inflorescence and the leaves of each species above, this confirms the ID Cenostigma pluviosum as the only one possible, among species already reported in the region on iNaturalist. Because I have no other reference, I go with it.

If later an expert finds out another similar species in the region, I hope that he/she (or someone else later) would review all observations previously identified as Cenostigma pluviosum. (This would be consistent with @dep 2nd comment).

The key point for me is keeping consistent. But I don’t know if my IDs are right or wrong.

[jeanphilippeb]

@karen5lund

I’ve come to think of it not as a one-time ID, but as steering unidentified Observations toward a better ID down the road.

Yes, identifying is a process.

[mamestraconfigurata]

A couple of things here. Making identifications is one of the best ways to learn the features of a group. Wrong identifications can be a problem but there are a couple of ways around this. First, if I am unsure that my confirmation is not quite right, I will say so in the post. Agree with the id, then add a note saying I think this is right. Secondly, ask for some help - there are a lot of folks to flag who will add to your id or change it. This signals to anyone concerned that the identification is not hard and fast.
Secondly, and I have said this before, Show Your Work. There is nothing more frustrating than getting an id changed with no reasons why. Yes it takes more time, and is not necessary for all confirmations, but it is a courtesy that we should extend to others.
Lastly, Identifications are labelled as suggestions. Confirming an id is a suggestion, based on your own knowledge. Stopping people from making identifications will inhibit learning and make this into an elite site for experts only.

[mamestraconfigurata]

Oh, and another thing I do is offer a suggestion without making a formal id. Along the lines of “have you considered…”, perhaps followed by reasoning. If the person agrees it’s still possible to add an ID. If not, generally a useful discussion ensues.

[karen5lund]

I didn’t know I could add other people’s observations. Great to know!

Thank you, Jeremy.

[mamestraconfigurata]

Some folks will not allow additions to projects, in which case a message pops up. Most of the people will allow the addition, though. In regard to feathers, @karakaxa is a young Greek woman with close to 30,000 identifications. She is extremely knowledgeable for someone so young!

[karen5lund]

Almost two weeks (and many more IDs) since I wrote that, I can also say that working on Unknowns is also a process of new user education.

I’m pretty new myself, and a decidedly amateur naturalist, but I have lots of professional experience with databases. Sometimes it has been as much about getting users to put IDs in the correct place (not comments or descriptions) and nudge them toward offering an ID that is neither too broad nor more specific than they really know.

I’m learning, too.

[karen5lund]

Good to know. Thanks!

[kmagnacca]

The problem is that wrong identifications tend to compound each other, especially for uncommon things. People make identifications based on photos that are already there, so if several of the first images that pop up have the wrong name attached, they’ll put the same wrong name on it.

That’s not making it a site for experts only, the point is to make it a place experts and non-experts both use to learn from each other. If it’s overwhelmed with incorrect IDs then there will be no useful information and it will become a site for non-experts only.

[mamestraconfigurata]

I understand that. I was proposing some ways that people could behave that would minimize incorrect ID’s without making the identification process too complex.
I’m also wondering how much of a problem this actually is. Are there any data that would suggest that rampant misidentification takes place on a significant scale? This is a legitimate question - I don’t know if misidentification is problem.

[cammie]

Another thing that you can do is what I do, and go to the “needs ID” page and search for IDs that need to be confirmed of a species you are very familiar with and that you are sure you cannot confuse with something else. For example, I find robins, great blue herons, and white clover very easily identifiable. There is often a mountain of commonplace species that need to be confirmed.

[danaleeling]

@mamestraconfigurata

I’m also wondering how much of a problem this actually is. Are there any data that would suggest that rampant misidentification takes place on a significant scale? This is a legitimate question - I don’t know if misidentification is problem.

The thread Identification Quality on iNaturalist covers this well. There is also a journal article on the Identification Quality Experiment. I recall reading somewhere, but I cannot now locate, that the misidentification rate in iNaturalist is lower than the rate seen in some curated collections such as herbaria. In part this is apparently an effect of “many eyes” and the dynamic nature of identifications in iNaturalist.