Malformed observation page?

This particular record, as I’m browsing through identify and hit it, starts to load and then locks up at a white page with the inat header and footer, forcing me to refresh to get back into identify.

I can’t get onto the obs to mark reviewed so that I don’t have to come across it, so I keep coming across it. Misbehaves on Win10 in Chrome including incognito, and in Firefox.

I appear to be able to confirm on Android 9 using Chrome.

Bah, I just found another too, same behavior:

not sure exactly what’s wrong here, but based on the comments, these appear to be cases where the original ID was a plant that iNaturalist seemed to think was an insect for some reason.

Observation #21065028 (Grade: needs_id)

iNaturalist URL:
Observer: hermes (#637404) / Hermes Vega
Observation License: cc-by-nc
Observed: 2011-07-15 17:39:00 GMT-10:00
Created: 2019-03-08 13:00:49 GMT-10:00
Last Updated: 2019-04-21 13:37:17 GMT-10:00
Taxon: stateofmatter / Life (#48460)
Observation / Taxon Geoprivacy: [Open] / [Open]
Location: Departamento de Santa Bárbara, Honduras
Latitude: 14.8754510104
Longitude: -88.1482855438
Accuracy: 15m
Country: Honduras (#6929)
State: Santa Bárbara (#10754)
County: Santa Bárbara (#31612)
Tags: [None]
Description: es una orquidea
Projects: 0
Identifications + Comments: 3 + 1
2019-03-08 20:00:49 GMT-03:00 Identification #46957844 by hermes (#637404) / Hermes Vega
[Unknown] (leading)
2019-03-09 10:15:39 GMT+11:00 Comment #2631046 by rustybee (#1052604) / Rusty
This is a software error I’ve seen before. Stelis villosa is a plant that comes up as Megachilidae.
2019-03-09 14:39:38 GMT-03:00 Identification #47009699 by rustybee (#1052604) / Rusty
family / Orchidaceae (#47217) / orchid family (leading) (disagreement)
It’s not the plant I’m disagreeing with, it’s the taxon.
2019-04-21 20:37:17 GMT-03:00 Identification #50878165 by liuid (#749284) / Liu Idárraga O.
family / Orchidaceae (#47217) / orchid family (leading)
Annotations: 0
Observation Fields: 0
Data Quality Assessments: 0
Photos: 1

Observation #5477681 (Grade: needs_id)

iNaturalist URL:
Observer: phinaea (#87972) / John L. Clark
Observation License: none (all rights reserved)
Observed: 2016-03-05 16:12:00 GMT-05:00
Created: 2017-03-27 10:44:05 GMT-04:00
Last Updated: 2019-04-08 17:30:02 GMT-04:00
Taxon: stateofmatter / Life (#48460)
Observation / Taxon Geoprivacy: [Open] / [Open]
Location: Shaime, Ecuador
Latitude: -4.3178762
Longitude: -78.6661124
Accuracy: 535m
Country: Ecuador (#7512)
State: Zamora Chinchipe (#10504)
County: Nangaritza (#29945)
Tags: [None]
Description: [Not Provided]
Projects: 2
2017 Research in Field Ecology (#11370)
The 2017 Lawrenceville School BioBlitz (#10823)
Identifications + Comments: 7 + 3
2017-04-01 16:40:01 GMT+00:00 Identification #11429175 by phinaea (#87972) / John L. Clark
(retracted) [Unknown] (leading)
2017-04-01 16:41:06 GMT+00:00 Comment #832264 by phinaea (#87972) / John L. Clark
So. . iNaturalist links this name to a moth, but obviously this is a plant. Common terrestrial herb that grows in wet areas throughout Ecuador.
2017-04-07 13:10:54 GMT+00:00 Identification #11590382 by srall (#35078) / Sara Rall
(retracted) family / Gesneriaceae (#71520) / gesneria family (leading)
since I can’t find the genus or species, either. Achimenes scabrum and Trevirana scabra are synonyms, but neither is in iNat, either.
2017-04-09 03:24:57 GMT+00:00 Identification #11633901 by phinaea (#87972) / John L. Clark
[Unknown] (leading)
Here is a link that shows images of Diastema scabrum: Here is a link with taxonomic information for D. scabrum:
2017-04-09 12:02:41 GMT+00:00 Comment #841484 by srall (#35078) / Sara Rall
Diastema scabrum is the official name of a moth as well as a plant (for whatever reason animal genera are allowed to have identical names to plant genera), so you probably shouldn’t link to the insect for the plant. What needs to happen here is one of the iNat officials needs to add Diastema scabrum to the database. I did just manage to find the genus listed in iNat, but they don’t seem to have the species.
2017-04-09 12:04:19 GMT+00:00 Identification #11641141 by srall (#35078) / Sara Rall
(retracted) genus / Diastema (#183897) (leading)
D. scabrum
2019-03-02 22:05:58 GMT+00:00 Identification #46476804 by jasonrgrant (#186163) / Jason Grant
(retracted) genus / Diastema (#183897) (leading)
2019-03-02 22:06:16 GMT+00:00 Comment #2610720 by jasonrgrant (#186163) / Jason Grant
2019-04-08 19:22:07 GMT+00:00 Identification #49538860 by vechocho (#1368344) / Victor E. Chocho
kingdom / Plantae (#47126) / Plants (leading)
2019-04-08 19:27:41 GMT+00:00 Identification #49539329 by jasonrgrant (#186163) / Jason Grant
species / Diastema scabrum (#881705) (leading)
Annotations: 0
Observation Fields: 0
Data Quality Assessments: 0
Photos: 3


@pisum how do you see the comments?
I can’t figure out a way to see them.

you can get the information from the API. a month or so back, i wrote something to pull observation information into a printer-friendly format (see so i just used that to get the details, since the normal interface doesn’t pull the information back.

1 Like

Can confirm it doesn’t load for me either, tried it in both chrome and Microsoft Edge.

Doesn’t load any contents on Mac either, just to more or less complete the browser testing.

Using the web inspector in Safari (and presumably Chrome, at least) does show errors on this page that don’t appear on well-formed pages:


i think what these errors are saying is that those taxa from the above comments – a moth version of Diastema scabrum and a Megachilidae version of Stelis villosa – existed at one point but are no longer there. probably the observation detail page assumes that taxa may be inactivated but will never just disappear, and it looks like maybe these just disappeared.

i seem to recall there being some kind of problem with stuff being loaded from outside sources when there were species homonyms like this. i couldn’t find that conversation, but maybe a cleanup for that inadvertently caused this problem?


the 2 problem observations seem to be showing up now. it looks like the problematic (removed?) taxa were redirected to the proper (remaining?) taxa. this thread can probably be closed now, right?

1 Like