How do you approach IDing observations submitted by a superuser in your area who is relatively informed on a particular taxa but who also does not seem to always provide sufficient evidence to justify their species-level ID for their own observations?
I feel like I have two options: I can either ID their observation at a higher taxonomic level and let them provide more explanation afterwards OR message them first to provide explanation before submitting an ID.
This dilemma seems to be an issue for me when mosses, liverworts, and lichens need microscopy or a spot test to ID to the species level.
As a superIDer I feel the burden of proving a species ID is reasonable when the photographic evidence does not support that notion is with the observer.
If they did not feel providing that information (if it exists) while uploading, I do not feel I need to ask for it when IDing. So I will provide my ID, if it is disagreeing I might shortly explain why (e.g. āseveral similar species in this regionā) and move on.. if the observer can add something more, like "yeah, but it was in this habitat, which excludes the other optionsā, I will gladly return and review my disagreement.
I know other iNatters take or wish for a different approach, especially when disagreeing, so my way of handling these things is surely not the optimum for everyone, it just is for me.
Thereās also the option of just marking Reviewed and not adding an ID at all if youāre not confident itās wrong. Whether thatās better or worse than either of your other options, I canāt comment, but it does remove the dilemma.
I donāt feel any obligation to weigh in on every observation in my ID panel. If I can tell from the evidence what it is, I add my ID. If I canāt but it matters, I may say āHow did you rule out X?ā and toss it back, and they may give a satisfactory answer. If I donāt get that, I move on (mark it reviewed if I never want to think about it). If they make a lot of observations of that species that makes them credible, but not infallible. Thatās the way Iād want to be treated.
There is a very prolific poster in my area whose observations often do not have enough evidence to support the species level IDs she attaches to them. I tried a couple of times to message her, but got no reply, so now I just skip over many of her observations while IDing.
As several people have said, I probably wouldnāt give an ID at all. If the person is informed enough that they know what evidence they should be providing and are still not providing it, thatās not really my job to worry about.
I have a similar āproblemā with a user who is well known for his bug knowledge across his country and beyond. However, his observations most often consist of 1 image with a species ID that requires microscopy or even further examination. (he is known to collect specimen but its never specified)
I did not get the chance to talk to that particular user but to someone who made some of his observations RG. I asked if he could ID similar observations and he said āI trusted User X because of his reputation in my countryā. He asked me if he should withdraw it and I said: āIf you believe the ID is correct leave it as it is. If you donāt know if its correct, withdraw.ā
He said: āI donāt withdraw. He possibly collected it and then he is correctā
I am not doubting the users knowledge but the observation quality. The species in question are most often āfirst for iNatā on RG but there is always just 1 img with no notes.
In my opinion none of his observations should be able to reach RG just because āthis guyā made the observation.
If I think itās likely to be correct, but simply not enough evidence, Iāll just mark as reviewed without identifying. If I think thereās likely an error, Iāll leave a comment along to lines of āHow are you ruling out X species?ā.
Idk if itās the best approach, most usually donāt respond and someone else eventually promotes it to RG without any actual evidence. Oh well.
As identifiers we can only work with what they provide. ImageS (adequate to show relevant field marks) or notes about those field marks. If my ID can help to narrow it down ā¦ otherwise the same treatment anyone gets. Mark as Reviewed, Next.
What is interesting is that ātheyā will often to demand to see field marks when they ID for others.
That might depend on the taxon, but in spiders I ran into several cases where this might lead to a runaway process of non-IDable species popping up all over iNat. I also got into discussions several times along the lines of āBut there are many IDs of this species on iNat and they cannot all be wrong, so mine is fine as wellā. I thus personally prefer correcting too bold IDs when I am sure they cannot be done actually
Iāve come across several observers who clearly know the species theyāve photographed, but the photo or photos they took are not enough to convince me. Itās my understanding that they use the observation as a substitute for field notes and donāt care if it reaches Research Grade, or they use the observation as a way of marking the path they took and donāt care if it reaches RG, or they are much better at IDing trees from just the bark then I am and are hoping there are good bark identifiers out there. Sometimes, an observer sees something they donāt know and makes an observation knowing itās likely they didnāt get exactly the right photos to ID a cool beetle that flew away after one photo, or the photo of the stipules thatās needed to distinguish two look-alike plants, or the photo of the right life stage thatās needed. The best the observer might be hoping for is that some identifier might, possibly, be able to take something identified as Beetle down to the family.
In short, it doesnāt matter to some observers if their observations donāt all reach RG, for various reasons (I include myself in that group of observers).
Technically identifiers should identify to the level possible from the evidence. If the observer isnāt happy with the result, they can opt out of community ID. But that process is understandably often not socially intuitive for either side.
This is me in a nutshell. I honestly couldnāt care less what percent of my observations are āresearch gradeā. If I recognize a moth in the field based on marks that I donāt capture in a photo, Iāll still post the species name and a description of what I saw that led me to that ID, so I have a record that I saw it. I know there are different philosophies about how much to trust non-photo bits of an observation (description of a birdās call, identity of an insectās host plant if it wasnāt photographed, descriptions of distinctive behaviors like tail-bobbing, habitat info, impression of size, etc.) So depending on who looks at my observation, they may do anything from disagree back to genus to ignore it to agree with the species. If the identifier has new information about species options that I hadnāt considered, I appreciate the feedback. If we both know the ID is probably right, but the identifier wants to engage in a philosophical debate about the nature of certainty, I usually just ignore them.
Similarly, if I come across observations by people I know to be experts in a taxon and I know that theyāre basing their ID on size or dissection or something else thatās not visible in the picture, I just mark as reviewed and move on. Iām not going to send something to research grade that I canāt personally verify, but Iām also not going to pull a hardline āI canāt verify it so Iām disagreeingā stance. If a birder saying āmaking ch-beck callsā, an artist drawing a racoon, and a caterpillar photographer saying āfeeding on Ostryaā can be considered evidence, then a field note of āunderside of abdomen was all whiteā ought to count as well- though none of these are really āverifiableā forms of evidence.
Putting on my science communicator hat here: Iād suggest writing a kindly worded (or at least neutrally worded) standard statement that indicates that certain genera need additional evidence to be identified to the species level. A reasonable person would take that as a learning opportunity.
Putting on my superuser hat: In my first years of using iNat, I received both kindly worded and rudely worded statements regarding lichens and mosses. The kindly worded statements came across as humble, collaborative, and educational. Sometimes the iNatter used humor, which I appreciate. The scolding statements spurred me to record solely observations for those genera that I find personally interesting, and I now identify them only to the genus level. The end result is more accurate ā but fewer ā observations for those organisms.
I agree that users definitely shouldnāt ID based on their perception of othersā expertise. ID based on what you, yourself, can evaluate about the observation. I would personally add a disagreeing ID to a higher level on observations like these, if I knew that the ID couldnāt be supported from the evidence in the observation photo. If thereās a specimen, the observer could always add photos from it to support the ID or it is probably already in a collection anyway.
Documenting an observation for other people can require a mental shift of perspective. Instead of walking in the woods and taking photos for oneās own gratification, the information has to be presented in a manner and format that will be useful to others. Thatās the difference between citizen science and just taking trophy photos. The quality of the shared photos can be low, but if the information is there, it works.
For some of my observations, for example if I am mapping a plant distribution, Iām fine if no-one confirms my ID, so I use my time to make more observations rather than adding more photos to make it clearer to an identifier. No doubt this is also shaped by the fact that I rarely get confirming IDs no matter what photos I post, but Iām fine with that situation, too.
Other users may use other repositories for their detailed information or maybe even DO recognize visual differences.
Example 1: I was just working with an older, experienced, and very good (Fungi) IDer the other day. He doesnāt always go back to INat to add to his observation after in-lab analysis and working through keys. He is not afraid to make an educated initial guess when he first posts an observation. He has his own lab and herbarium (fungarium) and has own well established accessioning procedures. He records details in his own digital and/or hardcopy files. He is recording on INat his well informed initial ID to compare later.
Some of his interesting samples are sent to others for DNA processing. When the sample are finished, the folks who processed the data add to INaturalist all kinds of extra fields like (the DNA barcode) and comments (notes on their Blast results, a comment about its closeness to other know samples etc.).
When the lab folks and even others who noticed his post suggest it is something else he learns from that.
Example 2: One of the professionals (worked in academia) who was one of the big voices for opting out of community consensus is a mycologist. I donāt think he cares to take the extra step to add his notes to his INat observation. He is another example of someone who likes to see his original posted ID which I believe comes after microscopy, working through keys etc. He also has his own fungarium and good accessioning procedures. His samples mostly end up in an institutional fungarium.
Example 3: I know a plant/fungi observer (not a professional) who is crazy good at IDing. Forget being the first to observe a species in an area, he has examples of being the 1st and only person to find a plant species in a large area in more than 50 yrs.
I once saw someone on INat, bump one of his fungus observations up to genus, because the bumper claimed āno oneā could possibly ID just from the (good) photographs provided. That is not a bet I would take.
If you canāt ID something from what is given, put that in a comment, if you think that is important to state. I donāt think bumping to genus adds value to any of these users IDs.
But then thoses users should just add a note describing how they arrived at their IDā¦ because I would want to claim most other users that ID such āimpossibleā species do NOT indeed have the knowledge to do so .. so it is a rather save bet, that those species IDs are merely more then a wild guess.
I am just cleaning out a species that had over 1200 observations .. I use visual cues, so it is not a bumping back on a hunch in this case. But at the moment there are just little over 700 observations of this species left on iNatā¦ and a country where the species seemed to be widespreat now only has one valid observation left.
That shows how much some false or to bold IDs can lead to masses of others. I thus think it is important to clean those to set expectations right
In cases like this I use non-disagreeing higher level ID and leave it at that. The disagreement is reserved for cases where I know the species is wrong. Quite often observers take the hint and back down to same level. That usually happens with the non-experts, though.