This is complicated in a few ways. When saying i feel pushed to reduce identifications on iNaturalist, this is not for a single reason, but many. Perhaps its my fault for not elaboring that detail. Misidentifications and new observation volume is only a part of it.
Short answer: Yes, but it really depends on what is taught, somethings are much easier than others. My profile links to many *mostly open Chironomid adult identification resources. https://www.inaturalist.org/people/424633
I already have a large google doc with over 100 pages of information. It still has a number of issues and would require quite a lot of work to improve. I haven’t really been working on it much anymore though, both due to time and the increasing difficulty of learning harder to identify Chironomidae.
Teaching people can be very worthwhile, I would like to share and help make more identification information accessible. It would also be great if part of this could be done through curated CV notes or information popups on how to ID that taxon when using the CV. Many of the misidentifications I correct are as simple as, “no male genitalia visible”, so what ever it is you have, you can’t really be certain if no male genitalia visible. Especially if it is a female. It will be interesting to see if the AI project will turn out and address this issue, although I would prefer to be able to just write whats needed to ID a certain taxon.
Some Chironomid taxa in the CV, generalized whats needed to ID.
Needs male genitalia
-Dicrotendipes
-Harnischia Group, *females are in limbo, kind of distinct, kind of not
-Kiefferulus
-Camptochironomus
-Chironomus crassicaudatus
*Most taxa that need male genitalia aren’t actually in the CV since it is difficult to photo most of the time
Needs wing veins, front legs visible
-Tanytarsini
-Prodiamesinae
-Diamesinae
-Corynoneura Group
-Phaenopsectra, need to see hair on wing
-Pentapedilum, need to see hair on wing
I also think if somebody is passionate to help with identifications, they should try to learn a taxon that doesn’t really have a main identifier on iNaturalist right now. Like how I have attempted to fill that role for Chironomidae. Examples like moth flies, dark winged fungus gnats, biting midges, gall midge adults, could really use an identifier. But if someone is interested to learn Chironomids, I can definitely help, although I will note it is quite difficult to get into.
Simple, not really. Most keys in order to understand, you need a diagram of the anatomical parts of a Chironomid and a microscope. Most people will not know what fore T5, superior volsella, gonostylus, M-CU wing vein, mean. Many papers are also paywalled, only cover a certain genus, region, lifestage, etc. One usually needs to look at many different papers to get a good idea of look alikes and the target genus / species.
For the US, there is no comprehensive key that goes to species. The closest is one that goes to genera, but its a few decades old now, covers US, Canada, Europe, and North Asia. The key is quite scientific and can’t really be used for most things unless you have the flies under the microscope.
For the subfamily Chironominae in US, Canada, the latest comprehensive key to species is 1945.
The North American Tanypodinae book is more up to date and usuable, it is actually where I started learning Chironomidae.
Some specific Chironomid groups do have simplier easier to use keys. But that is few and far between since most need microscope. Stenochironomus in the US and Canada as an example.
The above two comments are good positive advice I appreciate seeing. I think I have been a bit hard on myself and tried to take on too much work. Curating all 200k Chironomid observations on iNaturalist is unrealistic.