Platform(s), such as mobile, website, API, other: Backend URLs (aka web addresses) of any pages, if relevant: - Description of need: This change is needed to reduce the huge workload for identifiers who have to clean up wrong computer vision based IDs Feature request details: A few years back, …

There was this post by staff from March last year; I don’t know what has happened since: [image] New Computer Vision model released! We’re got this identified as an important upcoming experiment and I’ll let you know when we have some results. Inclusion of selected hybrid taxon on an opt-in …

if the mallards are the stumbling block, exclude them.

I think this would be very beneficial for most plants and support this idea. Giving curators the ability to control which suggested hybrids can be suggested really helps prevent a lot of the issues associated with having all hybrids in the suggested ID section. I often see hybrid duck and goose obs…

This might be getting off topic, but what about allowing curators to selectively flag taxa to be removed from being suggested by the CV? E.g. certain fly species that are only possible to ID to species with dissection. Those should never be suggested by the CV, in my opinion.

Here’s more details from staff about why hybrids caused problems: [image] New Computer Vision model released! Yeah, I’m concerned about vision accuracy on avian hybrids & related species. It’s turning out to be a hard problem for the vision system. We don’t train on subspecies, and it may be tha…

[image] Jarronevsbaru: It can be very difficult to work out the hybrids ancestry without genetic analysis as many cultivars have several species and cultivars in their ancestry. The highly popular cultivar Narcissus ‘Jetfire’ for example has 6 different species in it’s ancestry! For some flow…

As others have said, nothotaxa =/= hybrids. Unfortunately iNaturalist does not have an ingrained system to differentiate if a taxon falls under the first or second case at this time. But nothotaxa absolutely should be part of computer vision, no question, as they operate like “real” species and it w…

Anas platyrhynchos x Tadorna ferruginea?

My take is that, on balance, the benefits of including hybrid plant taxa in the model would far outweigh the costs. The current situation creates a significant burden on identifiers, as illustrated by the Kalanchoe × houghtonii example. Many common plant hybrids are misidentified as parent species, …

That is a real shame, having a generic “cultivated hybrids” ID would make a lot of sense.

Make computer vision include hybrid taxa on an opt-in basis

Feature Requests

upupa-epops January 7, 2025, 2:43pm 21

For some flower genera there used to be a generic “cultivated hybrids” taxon that situations like this could be identified as. I think those have been removed as invalid names now and messy plants should just be identified to genus. There was a suggestion for a different way to approach these here.

Topic		Replies	Views
When could hybrids could be included in the CV? General	15	1273	September 4, 2023
New Computer Vision model released! News and Updates	42	6317	October 4, 2024
Recommendations on improving the AI algorithm? General	47	1148	April 13, 2025
CV suggesting some hybrid taxa, but hybrid taxon pages do not display "Computer vision model: included" badge Bug Reports	7	289	July 8, 2024
Suggestion: Allow hybrids that specify a genus only Curators	25	2859	August 26, 2026

Make computer vision include hybrid taxa on an opt-in basis

Related topics