Incorrect leader board species count

Please fill out the following sections to the best of your ability, it will help us investigate bugs if we have this information at the outset. Screenshots are especially helpful, so please provide those if you can.

Platform (Android, iOS, Website): Website

App version number, if a mobile app issue (shown under Settings or About):

Browser, if a website issue (Firefox, Chrome, etc) :

URLs (aka web addresses) of any relevant observations or pages:

Screenshots of what you are seeing (instructions for taking a screenshot on computers and mobile devices:

Description of problem (please provide a set of steps we can use to replicate the issue, and make as many as you need.):

Step 1: Go to research grade animal observations in East Sussex, UK

Step 2: Go to the species section of the leaderboard and look at @oscar310306 's (me) species count (464)

Step 3: Then look at how many research grade animal species i actually have in East Sussex (481)

Thank you :)

It might not be a bug. Some pages on iNat count taxa a little differently (like your observations page versus a leaderboard page). Sometimes observations like one Felis not identified past genus and one Felis catus will count as two different things, but other times they’ll only count as one (you have one specific species identified from the genus Felis).


@m_whitson is right, the leaderboard only counts research grade observations at species level while the “species” page (for whatever reason) also includes reasearch grade observations at higher taxonomic levels (for example genus).


I get 464 with the search too, but you need to set the upper rank to species level:

Basically there are two types of taxa counts: species, and leaf. Leaf is much more computationally difficult so it’s displayed in less places to reduce load. See

@oscar310306 it would be really helpful if you could share exact URLs and screenshots as is asked in the bug reports template. That helps us replicate the issue as accurately as possible.

seems like this bug report should be closed at this point. no point in leaving it open if the original poster isn’t going to respond to requests for additional information needed to look into the problem, and it looks like the others have pretty much answered the question.