Conflicts involving the meanings of words. That’s one we haven’t talked about here, but I’ve seen that pop up elsewhere on the forum. There’s always something that someone can get agitated about.
4 Likes
One conflict that I’ve encountered is using different features to make an identification.
I once posted a wasp at genus because I wasn’t sure how to distinguish between the two species I thought were present in the country. Another user shared a link to a research paper and pointed out the distinguishing features in a comment:
User 1: In my opinion it is Species A because of the pattern on the thorax.
Me: The pattern on the thorax does look distinctive and the clypeus markings mentioned in the paper also match for this individual so I agree it’s Species A.
User 2: I disagree because the darkness of the bands isn’t what I’m used to seeing in the literature. Also, I don’t know that enough photos have been examined to make a claim about the clypeus markings being a distinguishing feature. So, in my opinion it’s Species B, not Species A.
I was surprised that the second identifier would seemingly ignore markings to focus on darkness/color since that can be influenced by things like amount of light/sunlight, camera settings, post-processing, and discoloration from research samples being stored/dried in alcohol.
Eventually a third identifier weighed in and put it in the same species group as Species A but as Species C due to the occiptal carina.
Four people focusing on four different features to arrive at their identification.
Similarly, I’ve asked a couple of people how they determine if a bee is Apis mellifera (Western Honey Bee) or Apis cerana (Asian Honey Bee) and the response from those users has been that the bands on A. mellifera (IIRC) are slightly thicker.
I have yet to be able to tell the two species apart based on band thickness – I’m generally bad with estimating measurements – but I did eventually come across this observation that points out that one of the veins on the hind wing of A. cerana extends out while on A. mellifera it doesn’t. That’s been a lot more helpful for me even if it’s not always easy to make out the wing venation from photos.
I suppose a third example would be the conflict between users who identify to subspecies based only on geographic range and those who identify to subspecies only if there are visible distinguishing features present in the observation.
9 Likes
I’ve faced two sorts of inter-personal conflicts, arising from:
- iNatter’s own preferences (with trusting this vs that keying material, assessing visible traits differently, defining loose concepts such as ‘wild’ or ‘feral’…)
- taxonomic/nomenclatural issues spilling over on iNat (for lack of scientific studies, unclear authorship/typification, messy external ‘reference’ scheme, etc.)
The first can devolve into a feud between users with dissenting views (stalemate is a possible outcome: avoid any further interaction with that person, or just around the contentious subject). The second is more easily workable – agreeing to disagree on topics largely out of our hands.
2 Likes
I think of this Key and Peele sketch a lot. (warning: salty language)
6 Likes
I remember when I was fairly new to identifying, it really bothered me to see what looked like two identifiers having the same argument across multiple observers’ observations – as in literally the exact same comments.
2 Likes
Yeah, this one is a bit of a problem, which is why I generally avoid assigning subspecies to my records. If you’re basing the subspecies ID on where it was found and it’s near the boundary or intergrade zone of two forms, I would not trust it unless you can see the defining characteristics in the photo. Regular assignment of subspecies based strictly on location in areas where two or more (or intergrades) are possible perpetuates erroneous range maps which, in the scientific literature and field guides, might not be that accurate to start with.
2 Likes
This IS a conflict (IDing by geography, rather than by ID-able characteristics), but I wanted to offer a positive psychology / gratitude type of comment on the topic of “iNaturalist / What a time to be alive”:
I briefly looked for a quote about this. Didn’t see the one I was looking for, but there are multiple threads on this topic.
Which is, the idea that range maps in books etc. are always imprecise, and are drawn by making a rough circle around where the taxon is thought to be.
Whereas, one of the most powerful aspects of iNaturalist is the ability to track, in real time, range expansions and contractions, based on actual observations. I believe @petezani has commented on this several times.
3 Likes
I fully agree with the increasing inflation of identifying subspecies in one of my area of knowledge, the West indies mostly for orchids and birds with several shortcomings:
Historically, thought endemism conducted to think high level of endemism based on herbarium interpretation ( for plants dry specimen: orchids) that were rarely confirmed by field survey. Too many recent papers in also sometimes dubious if no predatory journals allow to publish with almost no local (field) knowledge and later “seems” to be accepted (by POWO for example) with a huge bias to abroad English publications ignoring for years local field research if published in Spanish or French.
For birds, superficial analysis of available documentation conducts to identify subspecies in the Lesser Antilles without being able to explain which characters are visible on pictures by people having sometimes poor knowledge of them. It already conducts to have degraded information on some birds when local “endemics” occur together with other migratory “subspecies”( from birds of prey to warblers).
I wonder if some simple charter on research ethics would be helpful to guide identifiers, to avoid to stimulate them to try, I think in good faith, to help the community without enough information to do it.
4 Likes
I agree that IDing by geography alone can present conflict. I have run up against users who say things like ‘that’s not listed here in the field guide’ or ‘according to this country’s list of taxa’ and it’s the same thing. As soon as you have a list of possibles and reject any possible occurrence not on that list you’ve put yourself in a box…a box that allows for no strays, casuals, or species movement. My study species occurs in the dry areas of the west, but has been reported in Florida, Wisconsin and elsewhere because it sometimes acts as a stowaway. Anoles are particular well known for hitching rides in commercial plants so that Anolis sagrei has appears in places like the Yukon Territory of Canada. While location can be essential for identifying, nothing takes the place of actual traits present on the organism itself.
5 Likes
I agree that possible migrants sometimes need to be considered, but I think this needs to be done with proper knowledge and caution. With ladybugs for example, there are many species that are externally identical and it often happens that someone identifies an observation as a species that is far outside its known range. All the while, a species that is actually present in the region isn’t considered. In some places, this has happened dozens of times over.
I think that before suggesting a vagrant, migrant, casual, etc, an identifier should be aware of all the possible options to be sure of their identification. User @anonymous_ebirder did an impressive job of this with their Mexican Duck observation from Ontario. See notes: https://inaturalist.org/observations/177364836
To summarise, expect the unexpected, but also expect the expected to be expected.
6 Likes
As a museum curator, I agree. iNaturalist is fairly well curated compared to many museums.
DNA barcoding would help, but has limits, and, for a number of reasons (# genes, resolution, hybridization, DNA extraction), wouldn’t be able to ID everything. At least for plants, Canada has done some systematic barcoding at large scales, but I’m not aware of anyone else. The vast majority of specimens have not been, and in fact, a large proportion of specimens in the USA are not even databased, including at major herbaria.
10 Likes
Another tension is in the curation between those wanting an ID, versus those wanting a cladistic and published backbone. This applies especially to hybrids.
Any good herbarium or museum would have a “folder” or “tray” for hybrids - they would not put in the unidentified shelves.
However, there is a contingent on iNaturalist that maintains hybrids are irrelevant, unless formally described (even when it is the first record and determined as the hybrid on iNaturalist).
In most cases this does not really matter, but in some it does. Take Leucospermum - a genus from South Africa that is currently in vogue in the horticultural and cut-flower industry. We have a plethora of hybrids, with Hawaii currently producing 4-way crosses for the Californian and Hawaiin growers, landscapers and florists. (yes, many of these will probably be descrived in the next edition of the International Protea Cultivar Register (e.g. https://www.capeflorasa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/IPCR-March-2022-12th-edition.pdf) when it is updated.
Yes, iNaturalist is supposed to be for wild organisms, but 15% of the 22,000 Leucospermum observations on iNaturalist are hybrid plants from gardens and vases (there are many more of pure species cultivars, but getting figures for those is more difficult).
Clearly in the USA and Europe there is a mismatch between “wild” and what people are posting on iNaturalist, especially for eye-catching species - all observations of Leucospermum from these areas are cultivars..
However the “formal taxonomy” does not cater for the over 2000 Leucospermum hybrids which cannot easily be identified to cultivar (5% can easily be identified to parentage), but are clearly hybrids. The majority of users would be happy to know that it was a hybrid, but the current approach iNat require these to be only identified to genus, with the ticking of annotations and adding projects or observation fields that often dont make sense - and are obscure to most users - to indicate that it is a hybrid.
A workaround may be to have a hybrid “bin” for those genera with lots of hybrid observations. But such a name would not be a valid taxonomical name, and so is not seen as an option by many curators.
5 Likes
This conflict is
authority vs reality
Cultivars can escape and become an introduced species.
It is only a problem if these spread fast but we don’t know how fast it is spreading if it cannot be reported.
the problem is that you are describing a case where there isn’t ANY name applicable. look at the reverse, in Pelargonium × hybridum — that is a validly published name, and people aren’t objecting to its usage as a grouping bin because at least the name P. × hybridum actually exists. the case in “Leucospermum × hybridum” has only come up as a problem because that name has never been published at all, not because it’s being used as a bin for complex hybrids, which is a different issue. there are taxonomic problems, and then there are nomenclatural problems.
1 Like
I recommend for those involved in the “conflicts, described above” in this community that you read “The Rape of the Lock”. It is a long poem written by Alexander Pope. It is “tongue in cheek” humor written with great nuance and skill
2025-04-03T05:00:00Z.
High Conflict was a great read. It’s something I think about a lot given ::gestures:: everything.
3 Likes
Thank you for your science!
People who work in an environmental job/academia vs people who do not.
I upload what I see in nature for fun. I did go to school for environmental sciences but what not taught ID of much in college, and didn’t go past undergrad, and have not worked in the field much since. I spend a LOT of my FREE time learning how to ID everything. It is a passion and a hobby for me but I don’t get paid to do this. I have noticed on occasion some of the nastier responses or DMs I’ve received on here are from employees in academia or grad students who seem to completely miss this entire concept, that the observations they are benefitting from are often from people who do not get paid a single cent to do this. It’s pretty rude, shows a severe lack of gratitude, and treats us like we’re employees/underlings. Sometimes I haven’t been able to let this site by any priority in my life, and that’s when I have come back to somebody flipping out at me for not doing something in some “timely” manner.
5 Likes
I’m sorry you have run into this kind of rudeness, @beepboop . Most of us try to be polite, but some who are in academia and some who aren’t do behave badly.
1 Like
Flag them for missing the point? How odd to expect other iNatters to be at their beck and call!
Or mute them for the future?
2 Likes