Excellent summation, that!
2 Likes
only if you explicitly disagree. There is no problem with putting a genus level ID where there is already a (possibly correct) species ID, as long as you donāt explicitly disagree with it. Explicit disagreement (I feel) should only be done where you can determine from the evidence that it is NOT that species. If you strongly feel that there is not enough evidence to go to species, then I believe the correct course of action is to initiate dialogue. Only if dialogue is not forthcoming (or unlikely to) and the observer appears likely to not be aware of the issues relating to the taxa, should it be explicitly bumped back to genus.
3 Likes
Thanks. I guess I was reading only half of the sentence . . .
A few thoughts:
Genus-level IDs: I definitely think non-disagreeing genus-level IDs can still be useful (or, I should probably broaden to āof one primary taxonomic level coarser than the current IDā such as to reinforce a family if the furthest ID is to genus). This is really useful in a couple of situations. Say the prevailing genus-level ID actually turns out to be wrong (probably most prevalent within insects and plants). This still helps verify that the community ID is at least going in the right direction. Or say a troll (or trolls) later identifies it as a woolly mammoth. More IDs means that even if the observation gets kicked out of species, it will probably at least be prevented from being kicked way up such as to Life or to phylum. Adding that coarser ID (and following) also might mean more people are alerted to such a troll ID and can more quickly overpower it. That said, if itās somewhere around three primary taxonomic levels above (say, class or order instead of species), it probably isnāt really helping (though also isnāt really hurting unless thereās concern of gaming the system for ID count).
I also do agree with using disagreeing kick-up-to-genus (or higher, depending) IDs in certain cases. Iād also agree that it should be based on knowledge of an ID problem as opposed to just not knowing (with a slight asterisk below) and will certainly vary by taxon (i.e. class and phylum). For instance āspecies A and species B are known to be cryptic and are only separable based on trait X, which isnāt visible here and wouldnāt have been visible to the naked eyeā or (with insects) āexperts on BugGuide really refuse to ID beyond genus / family, so there are likely identification issues that arenāt mentioned on John Doeās Garden Photos Blog that just shows the one speciesā (with many insects, coarse BugGuide IDs tend to mean that an ID is literally impossible without extensive microscopy, often traits like genitalia or hairs on the wings). A potential exception (that asterisk) where ignorance might still warrant a kick-up would be āwell, this looks like species C and walks like species C, but thereās apparently a species D recorded in the area that, for the life of me, I canāt find a decent reference on at all.ā It might be enough doubt to suggest against the original species. Another way to think about it all: take the number of species that the observation legitimately could represent into probability. If the odds of the ID being correct are about the same as randomly selecting one of the candidates (i.e. 50/50, 33/33/33, 25/25/25/25, etc.), the probability of it being wrong is at least 50%. Those really arenāt great odds, and disagreement reaches something that has more reasonable probability.
As good as it can be DQA: I think a general consideration of usage would be similar to rationale to kick-out of a species ID. For instance, thereās some issue where a diagnostic trait is known but canāt be seen in the photo, or known experts refuse to ID past some taxon. These tend to be used rather frequently in insect IDs where there can be hundreds of members of a single genus (or even subgenus if Iām remembering some bees correctly). Iād frankly say that it would probably be better to enter RG at a correct but coarser ID than to enter RG at an incorrect ID (for reference, at the time I joined somewhere around 50% of US paper wasp RG IDs were blatantly wrong, as were most of our default images).
If in doubt, ask: I think part of identification that can be forgotten is the conversation. Why was this marked under DQA? What was the approximate size? Why do other members of species X have this one trait that isnāt present here? Did you mean to explicitly disagree here? No matter how many guidelines are created, there will always be some sort of disagreement on application as all parties are human. A lot of potential drama can easily be avoided by being open to conversation.
10 Likes
one case where i will go a bit broader with disagreeing to genus is when things are WAY out of range and habitatā¦ for instance all the iDs of Coast Live Oak (a coastal California species) in Florida because the algorithm doesnāt know that from southern live oaks. The climates are SO different, coast live oak rots if it gets water in the summer and the Deep South getsā¦ like 50 inches of rain in the summer. So suffice to say the chance of a coast live oak growing to tree size in coastal Georgia is vanishingly small.
4 Likes
This is just from what I have experienced, but DQA of āAs good as it can beā is more of a case of āitās been sitting in the Needs ID pool for long enough, weāll just assume itās as far as itās going to get!ā. There are a number of identifiers that go back and look at old Needs ID obs, and will look at tagging in likely help or setting that DQA to drop them from the pool.
Unless you can say you are THE paramount and most infallible identifier, you canāt say that an observation that has just been loaded is not identifiable further. At least after 2 years one can make assessments on the unlikeliness of such an identifier encountering the observation (assuming they are unknown to everyone else and therefore wonāt get tagged as to itās existence!)
4 Likes
I agree with @jonathan142 - as time goes on, more of the āwill never be able to be IDedā obs (fuzzy, multi-obs, only a foot) accumulate, and obs that might be IDed are buried, so when identifiers go back to try to help, chances r the āgoodā obs wonāt be found. I think it shd be fine to tag those as no further ID possible, with the big caveat that the observer hasnāt been active for years.
3 Likes
I routinely thank the folks who help me correct my ids. And always try to comment when i disagree and generally get good feedback when I do. I have been observing nature for eons but all that means is I have been making the same mistakes for eons - INat has been good exercise in humility but it is also a fabulous learning tool and a great motivator to get out and look a things more closely!
I do notice however that my tree ids rarely get confirmed or commented on - Iām very comfortable with tree id although getting oaks, hickories and willows in some cases to species is still work in progress. I try and provide as many characteristics as possible including things like diaphramed piths in black gum etc and get nothing on either side of ledger. Id love to see some comments on what might be missing or why people would be reluctant to confirm some of these.
17 Likes
plant inaturalist is WAY slower than bird inaturalist. I do lots of tree IDs when i can butā¦ mostly a bit north of where it looks like you are
5 Likes
Speaking for myself, I am much less comfortable with trees than other terrestrial plants, and often donāt even click into them. So many seem to be a shot of the trunk in winter, and unless itās shagbark hickory, sycamore or black cherry, and in my region, Iām really hesitant to chime in. It sounds as though you provide enough info to be educational, making ID much less of a guess :-)
4 Likes
Your tree observations look good. I looked at some of them though I donāt know all of the trees that far south. I may have time to look at more later but eventually you should get idsā¦
1 Like
Hey @pitm, welcome to the forum! As @charlie said, IDs for trees can be a lot slower than stuff like birds and herps. In my experience I have found I felt better about how slowly some of my tree obs may get dealt with by thinking about how long it takes for my fungi obs to get attention! Itās all relative I guess :) I think our community is growing and hopefully, with that, more niche experts who can help us learn even more will join the mix. I agree with your statement about humility. I learn how much I need to learn on a daily basis and I love it! FYI: Iām definitely not criticizing any fungi or tree IDersā¦I appreciate you
5 Likes
When I ID observations with extensive detailed photos it makes me feel like I should attempt to key them out to species, which takes a lot of work that I donāt have enough motivation or time to do, but if I add an ID to it then I feel like I wonāt ever get around to looking at it again to ID properly. And so I often just skip those observations. But if that same person uploaded a single blurry photo, I would at least ID to family. Itās an unfortunate paradox, but Iām not the only one who IDs like this.
2 Likes
When Iām working ferns and run into an example of a tricky genus, I often key to genus (or subfamily, or whatever) and toggle off āreviewedā. That way we get some improvement, and occasionally I will sit down one evening and bash through that particular genus getting observations down to species level.
5 Likes
Here quick like Iām doing a ponderosa and Rocky Mountains Douglas fir ID bliz the later primary Arizona and New Mexico
I feel bad because Iāve let them pile up
And then white fir is going to be my focus
1 Like
@jonathan142 really nails it here. I always like to describe an observation as the start of a discussion, and the comments and IDs are parts of the discussion. Sometimes this gets lost as we grind through the Identify tool, I know I forget about it often.
9 Likes
I assume on iNaturalist youāre Peter M Martin? Iād agree with Charlie that plants/trees are slow here, even many observations that would be pretty easy for familiar users to ID. Iāll see if I can get any of yours. I agree that comments on IDers on missing information are super helpful, one of the most valuable components of the iNaturalist format in fostering peer-to-peer learning.
5 Likes
This is a really good post. Back-and-forth conversation in the comment boxes is high-bandwidth and there are a lot of opportunities for communication and clarification. Entering IDs is very low-bandwidth. A lot of this āetiquetteā discussion is really about making rules to pack a lot of meaning, as subtext, into the act of making IDs. There are certainly valid reasons why people may choose not to engage in an extended conversation on any given observation, but we should probably urge people to reach for conversation as a tool early and often, rather than imbuing IDs with a lot of hidden meaning. (That does suggest that notification improvements are important, so that we can be responsive when people initiate a conversation about our actions.)
8 Likes
I have this issue with grasses - canāt show the key features in my photos. So I put them in the description (āfirst glume 1.1mm longā etc.). Some identifiers who know me seem to read these and take them into account, others donāt, but at least I tried and I have documented the info for myself.
8 Likes