How to deal with observations that attain research grade, though only ID of the genus should be made?

[kiwifergus]

We have a spider here in New Zealand, Uliodon, that is last mentioned in literature (and I use my snipet that I use to put in comments) as

From Paquin et al. (2010) p92
“New Zealand Zoropsidae are badly in need of taxonomic attention. They have been recently transferred from Miturgidae to Zoropsidae by Raven & Stumkat (2003). The three known species are not recognisable based on published descriptions. Another 40 undescribed species are suspected (R.J. Raven, pers. comm.) and may represent several distinct genera. The males of Uliodon albopunctatus and Uliodon cervinus are undescribed.”

In many photographic guides and internet treatments, photos of the spider are identified as Uliodon albopunctatus, and so everyone identifies them as such. I always put up the ID as genus, but I don’t explicitly disagree. I do encourage others to put genus though…

It is complicated by the fact that the family is being reviewed at present, and from time to time the author of the revision pops into iNat and IDs some of the obs to species level… I’m certainly not going to explicitly disagree with the author of the revision, even if it is unpublished, and perhaps is the only person thus in a position to be certain of ID! But until I have opportunity to read that revision myself, it will remain a genus level that I put.

It’s never straight forward with these things!

One rule of thumb I have when considering an explicit disagreement, is whether it could seriously be either species… in which case, does it really hurt to leave the ID at the species level? For example, Steatoda grossa and S. capensis are often confused here in NZ, but when you look at the habitat they each prefer, there are some strong environmental indicators that might come into play. The photos might not give enough detail to tell apart the species, and one might conclude that either species could be found in a built up area (housing), for instance, but one prefers drier/warmer conditions than the other, and so the background information in the photo could determine the species ID. And conversely, leaving a “not enough evidence” observation as species level, when the environmental indicators are suggesting the other species, could effectively be “untraining/confusing the CV”.

[fffffffff]

That’s why I only id mine as Flammulina sp., though I don’t want to get in argue about old observations, now I even avoid photographing them as I know I don’t want to collect them. The only time I did it it was velutipes! ugh https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/39411739

[mamestraconfigurata]

There are several moth species that cannot be identified to species on looks alone (based on sources). For example, Xestia c-nigrum and Xestia dolosa cannot be told apart using visual means in the East of NA. A complex (a recognition that the observation may be one of two moths) has been created for this region. If the species id is not possible to discern by visual means, then perhaps a ‘complex’ might be a solution for now.

[meuchael]

Thanks for the many answers. The conclusion for me (which I recommend to others) must be to follow my proposal to make ID at genus level in the given example, accompanied by a standard commentary with an invitation to explain the criteria on which a species ID is based. In this case there are hundreds of ID’s at species level. I don’t know how many I can overcome. This is a priority related to other iNat tasks.

[meuchael]

I just want to add that the observations that should be given the highest priority are those that have (perhaps erroneously) achieved research grade. One can easily do this by using filters.