I do this many times a day, and 99 percent of the time it does mean that I don’t think the species level ID is correct. If I’m not sure it’s not correct, I usually won’t hard disagree.
3 Likes
I will also add genus level IDs using the “green button” when I’m sure it’s in that genus but I can’t confirm the species with the evidence provided nor can I suggest a different one either. If I put a “hard” disagreement on something, I like to be able to suggest an alternative at the same taxonomic level rather than just “bumping it back” to genus. I only use the orange button if I can actually confidently rule out the suggested species and I can give an explanation for why it can’t be that.
My main objective for doing this is usually communicating my doubts or questions about the ID. I typically add a comment explaining my reasoning (as many have already suggested) or a question how the observer/IDers were able to distinguish this from species X, Y or Z. It’s usually because:
- It’s quite reasonable the ID might be correct but I know there is at least one similar species in the area and the distinguishing features are not showing in the pictures. (They may have been obvious to the observer in the field though.)
- I’m ID’ing things outside of my usual turf and I’m not sure if there are any similar species in that area that could be confused with the one in the observation.
Sometimes this has actually resulted in someone explaining the features that are visible in the pictures that they used to arrive at their ID and I’ve learned something new again. That’s a good enough reason for me to keep adding the occasional genus level ID with a comment/question.
A more specialized case is a project I’m involved in that aims to pull data in the form of genus level IDs for a research study. Many of the IDs so far have been provided by students or volunteers and are based on CV suggestions. I’ve been going through trying to confirm as many IDs as I can (or disagree if it seems wrong or questionable) as a way of helping with cleaning up the project data. As a result I’m also adding ID’s and “lending my voice” to confirm genus where there just isn’t enough info in the observation to confidently key it out to species since I know in the end it’s genus level that counts for the research project.
5 Likes
… and as a bonus, a notification about this new genus-level ID might entice other identifiers into thinking twice about their previous IDs. Who knows :)
4 Likes
Yes, sometimes that happens and the others push their own ID back as well
1 Like
@jasonhernandez74 that is a great question and merits a whole new conversation topic. I often see comments in FaceBook posts, commenting something like’iNaturalist doesn’t work for me’ etc. I think that means that they didn’t recognize that their photography skills and even basic knowledge of biology were insufficient for them to experience success. Other reason is they are not patient enough and want a quick and easy definitive identification in one shot. Either way, the result is they leave INaturalist.
4 Likes
I don’t think it’s detrimental, but personally speaking I do get a bit peeved over it when someone reverts it back to genus after it’s already at Research Grade and doesn’t specify why they’ve brought it back to genus.
5 Likes
I feel that annoyance at that is justifiable - its not hard to write a quick explanation.
tbh usually when I’m forcing stuff back to genus its initial computer vision misidentifications
5 Likes
When a RG observation reverts back to class or higher without any explanation that can be a problem. And there is no iNat requirement for explaining the action. The observer has to contact the reviewer and request an explanation which seems backward to me.
2 Likes
I’ve definitely seen cases where the original poster puts an ID guess based on the CV, someone comes in and agrees with them (another CV ID) and both are just… wildly incorrect. Like not even in the same kingdom correct (Happens with slime mold/fungi confusion sometimes).
I usually try to leave a comment on these but I can’t say I never forget to.
2 Likes
Lichens are another source of these kingdom-level disagreements. Often people will suggest moss or liverwort on them at first.
3 Likes
And Phaeophyca/Plant confusion.
1 Like
Spider IDs regularly get pushed back to sub-order. Well, in that case I often have the feeling not much thought has been put into suggesting a certain ID in the first place and in this case I don’t feel like explaining my correction into the void, likely not being read by anyone really.
There is always two sides of a coin, IDing and having to explain yourself can get tedious… but if your really want to know, just ask! If I know I do not do it in vain I (and many other IDers) will be happy to explain
7 Likes
But these are a different group of people than the prolific IDers emntioned earlier…
1 Like
Here’s a link for helping out with lichen vs moss/liverwort disagreements
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?iconic_taxa=unknown&order_by=updated_at&ident_taxon_id=311249%2C56327%2C64615&without_taxon_id=311249%2C56327%2C64615&place_id=any
I checked - nothing left there for me in Africa ;~)
1 Like
Over the years, I’ve found there are FMS (“frequently misidentified species”) in my group of interest. Whenever I type up an explanation for an ID involving one of these, I save it in a text file from which I can copy/paste in the future. Sometimes I can reuse these canned explanations without further modification, and sometimes I have to tweak them slightly. I agree that sometimes it can seem like it’s a waste of time (the observer will likely never read the explanation), but it may help someone else who is looking at the observation and wondering why the ID was changed. Using canned explanations can minimize the potential time wasted.
4 Likes
I wish I could find a good way to keep those canned explanations in a macro. I would love it if I could just hit F5 and it would paste in the explanation of what I need to see to identify a certain genus. I’ve tried various Windows macro programs and none have worked very well.
1 Like
It would be a two step process to set up.
Your explanation in a journal post, or on a website - so you have a link.
Then a text expander.
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/use-a-text-expander-browser-extension-to-quickly-enter-frequently-used-text/42842
I type three letters and get my carefully composed text.
For example I made one for Ancestor Disagreement linking back to the iNat blog post. They can explain why Diana says - but you said … is ‘a plant’ NOT - then cascading down all the taxon levels!
2 Likes
I’ve experienced this for a couple months now, by one user specifically. Rather than cite evidence I might be missing explaining their reasoning, their canned response is simply “not sure, could be a hybrid” or something to that effect. It’s not limited to my observations either. The more I dug, the more I saw a clear pattern of reverting everyone’s observation back to the genus level. I finally spoke up and asked that user what I’m missing that makes every tree “possibly a hybrid”, and the issue seems to have ceased.
2 Likes
‘Not sure’ is never a good reason to press the orange button and pop it up a level, sorry you had to deal with that
4 Likes