How do practitioners of each branch of natural history documentation view people who cover all taxa?
I’ve started to doubt and question my own development path. Let me explain my situation first — it’s rather complex. The content on my account mainly covers birds, insects, Arachnida, and other invertebrate groups (Crustacea, Annelida, Nematoda, Rotifera, Gastrotricha, tardigrades, etc.); plants (weeds, shrubs, woody plants, green algae, charophytes, mosses, and more); fungi (agarics, molds, lichens, powdery mildews, rust fungi, etc.); plankton (ciliates, diatoms, etc.). Protozoa, slime molds, fish, amphibians & reptiles, bacteria (cyanobacteria), viruses, and mammals appear occasionally.
Within the Natural History Documentation and flora&fauna hobby communities, apart from birdwatching, herpetology, entomology, and botany circles, there is another niche documentation direction with an extremely low presence: pan-taxa recording. Simply put, this means photographing every form of life; it usually spans four or more biological groups, even covering nearly all life forms, with erratic documentation styles and unconventional observational angles.
That said, as someone who pursues pan-taxa recording, my experience over the past few years has been consistently difficult. Perhaps due to my eclectic style or my overly broad focus, I sometimes struggle to concentrate my efforts, resulting in oversights and errors in identification. My approach has sparked some controversy within my local nature documentation circles. Critics claim I lack specialization in any single area, and some even suggest that my identification errors negatively impact data quality. Much like the wanderer, I can find some common ground when stepping into any single subcommunity — birdwatchers, botanists, insect photographers, and so on — yet no matter which group I join, I never feel a sense of belonging. I am a person with a strong desire to share my observations, but much of what I post is unintelligible to them. I was once harshly criticized and dogpiled by veteran experts before, and I do not wish to relive that experience.
I clearly remember every instance of dismissal from senior enthusiasts, even demands to delete posts or reminders. I wonder how many more rejections it will take before I’m truly broken.
I feel genuinely upset, and have begun to doubt my current approach. If I had the clout, I would launch a community group dedicated to pan-taxa recordists — but as an obscure, small creator with no prestige or influence, this goal is completely unattainable. I am deeply afraid of being invalidated by others. I even question whether this line of work holds any merit at all: what is the point of pan-taxa documentation? Is there a dedicated community for it? I feel profoundly isolated.
Supplementary Follow-up Note：
I don’t necessarily need validation from veteran experts; I only vented about how extremely niche this community is. This post was written on a whim amid a temporary surge of emotion. Long-term, I am actually very easygoing. Here, I merely described the rootless, adrift feeling that comes with this pursuit.
Of course, there is an unforeseen new path to resolve this predicament: establishing an independent pan-taxa community separate from the conventional specialized subgroups. This would be an approach that breaks free from the standard segmented hobby tracks.
Some people claim I wrote this post to rant in groups after being criticized or corrected, attempting to paint me as someone who cannot tolerate blunt, pointed feedback. As an outside observer, you may interpret this post through any lens you see fit—I have always been a divisive figure, and varied readings of my words are inevitable.
That said, if you infer I reject corrections on specimen identification, the reality is quite the opposite. From macro-level groups including birdwatching, botany, invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles, down to micro-level taxa such as SAR supergroup, cyanobacteria, and powdery mildews, I rely heavily on outside feedback and guidance. I wholeheartedly welcome input from specialists across all fields. Simply put, my role is capturing imagery; I cannot possibly identify every organism myself. The broader my scope of observation grows, the more gaps emerge in my knowledge, so oversights and mistakes are unavoidable.
To detractors and those who make snide remarks, I have this to say: please do not hesitate to point out any errors in my fieldwork practices or identifications—I will be deeply grateful for your input.
