@tiwane Here are a couple where it is still suggesting “expected nearby” for observations in England:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/281007294
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/276736076
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/279904277
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/280197331
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/273778289
For the other handful I corrected today, it only had “looks similar”, but they were elsewhere in Europe, so it seems to be a UK problem.
Thanks. Looks like the geomodel does expect it in parts of the UK, Iberia, and islands off of Africa. I assume due to similar other species being reported in those places, but it’s tough to know.
Anything that can be done about this? I’ve corrected a dozen or so observations in the UK just in the last couple of weeks. I realize that there is no guarantee that any alternatives it might suggest instead would be correct either, but not having wildly out of range taxa suggested as “expected nearby” seems like it would be an improvement.
(The subgenus Dialictus that this species complex is part of is both common and fairly distinctive in Europe, but most of the species are difficult to ID and thus there are not enough observations for any of them to be eligible for CV training. So what we really need is for it to be able to suggest the subgenus, but the inclusion criteria would seem to preclude this possibility.)