I posted a related topic a few weeks ago:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/use-of-the-term-species-complex-in-inaturalist-taxonomy/58938
There seems to be little consistency in what qualifies as a “species complex”, mainly because “difficult to identify” is a relative distinction. A few counter-examples to the ones listed in the original post, taken from my other post:
-Datana major/drexelli complex and Halysidota tessellaris/harrisii complex- caterpillars are easy to identify, just adult moths are difficult. People often see “it’s a complex” and question their species ID, placing the caterpillars at “complex” level, despite them being easily identified further.
-Chionodes pereyra complex- the two species involved have virtually no range overlap, so are almost always identifiable based on location alone.
-Feltia subgothica/tricosa complex- you just need the antennae to be in focus and fairly hi-res to identify, which is the case in many of the photos
-Eulithis diversilineata/gracilineata complex- until a couple years ago were considered inseparable as adults, but consistent ID features have recently been found, so most at the “complex” level can be taken to species
I could keep listing examples, but the point is that there are tens of thousands of observations currently at “complex” level that absolutely can be taken to species. In fact, certain “complexes” can get frustrating as an identifier when every observation on a whole continent at “complex” level represents the same species- the only one that occurs there. (Manually adding the species name to all of them is much less efficient than just clicking “agree”.) If all these observations were taken out of the “Needs ID” pool and thrown to research grade, it would make identification extremely difficult. Half the RG “complex” observations would be truly unidentifiable to species, and half would be perfectly identifiable. The only way to distinguish between these is to do so manually, as is the case now.
2 Likes