When identifiers do this, they aren’t “forcing an ID” onto someone since no one person determines the Community ID. Other users can come along and add their IDs as well. Each identifier just needs to do their best and let the CID fall where it may. If you’re making the ID in good faith via a reasonable process, you shouldn’t feel bad about it (whether you are trained in dandelions or not!).
6 Likes
Is there a preference for doing what sedgequeen suggests or for choosing “disagree” without selecting “good as it can be” until corroboration? It would be a lot faster doing what sedgequeen suggests so I might switch… but it’d mean they become rg as officinale.
I’m gonna start doing it this way too. Mind if I mimic your verbiage?
1 Like
So far, I’ve mostly been working Taraxacum that’s only been ID’d to genus level. But when I work a T. officinale, I’ve been making my genus-level ID a disagreeing one. Since POWO doesn’t recognize T. officinale at species level, it can’t be right.
There is talk here, however, about deviating from POWO, so that everything that belongs in Sec. Taraxacum would be T. officinale. That would definitely complicate analysis regarding whether to make it a disagreeing ID. And as @stockslager points out, it is quicker not to agree and as @cthawley says, if you have a good-faith reasonable process, all is well.
Given the uncertain state of affairs in Taraxacum, I’d personally disagree with the species ID, but not doing so certainly isn’t outrageous - and anybody who’s working Taraxacum observations has my approval!
Edit: Actually, I think it takes the same amount of time to disagree/not disagree - it asks and you have to choose one. It’s checking the box that takes the extra step.
4 Likes
If I’m totally honest, I still don’t understand why we don’t leave them officinale and make a bunch of sub-species under it… thereby allowing ourselves to just agree with officinale. Thankful for a plan and a way to reduce backlog tho.
3 Likes
Yep, if I were the all-powerful god of dandelion taxonomy, I think that’s how I’d do it, too. But in the meantime, yeah, at least we’re collectively making some progress on all these observations.
3 Likes
Actually it can be right if the iNat community has agreed to deviate from POWO - a question still under discussion
We would be creating a bunch of unpublished, and therefore invalid and “made-up,” subspecies names on iNaturalist - not something that should ever be done here.
Also, if we were to do that, or maybe co-opt the infrahybrid rank as has been suggested, we would be creating inconsistent taxonomy in one section of the genus, while leaving species at their correct rank in the remainder of the genus - also not a good idea.
2 Likes
Regarding deviation - yep! - that’s what I was alluding to in my next sentence, where I linked to the same discussion. 
It’ll be interesting to see what (if anything) we do.
1 Like
Why would it be faster? Again, it doesn’t take an extra ID as suggested in her original post.
Adding a non-disagreeing ID if the observation is only “Needs ID” at Taraxacum officinale is fine, because the community ID will become RG at the genus level only. But if the observation is already RG at Taraxacum officinale, then the community taxon remains at the species level if one doesn’t add a disagreeing ID, and so adding a non-disagreeing ID doesn’t really do anything more than just adding a comment instead.
iNat uses existing taxonomy, it doesn’t create taxonomy.
1 Like
Because of my own self-imposed limitation. I’ll either do disagreeing without checking “as good as it can be” or agreeing with checking of “as good as it can be”.
In some cases I’m id’ing to genus for actual Botanists who have much more experience than me in a relevant field. I am making these ID’s in “good faith” as cthawley points out. But I also want to have faith in those with more training than me.
If I do disagreeing without checking… then we have to wait for corroboration before I’ll check “as good as it can be”. I suppose someone else from the community could follow along behind me and just check the box.
1 Like
I feel it’s critically important that iNat begin to have more influence on taxonomy. It seems like this is still under some consideration…
https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/535033
1 Like
iNat can certainly chose which taxonomic authorities it wants to source, but it should not be used to create new taxa (and really cannot be, because no one would formally recognize its taxa) . If you haven’t already seen this, take a look at the “Policies” section of the Curator Guide.
The discussion here does indeed discuss deviating from POWO, but Taraxacum officinale is a taxon that exists outside of iNat and was not created on iNat. Choosing to maintain it as a taxon on the platform is different from:
4 Likes
Make[ing] lol… I type how I talk.
wrt creating a bunch of sub-species under it…
You are right… this is not the role of iNat… but if POWO or some other taxonomic authority chose to be more accommodating to ordinary citizens with less sophisticated tools… iNat might choose to look favorably upon them. If POWO chose to celebrate and encourage sub-species described with the benefit of new technologies (rather than lumping all new discoveries as new species) it might slow the proliferation of new entries at the species rank due to factors (new technology) inconsistent with the baseline rate of evolution.
2 Likes
No worries. Your original post was grammatically correct, I was just adjusting the tense to fit the sentence I was quoting you in.
This isn’t really the primary function of taxonomy. However, I agree that taxonomy in general should be made much more accessible (i.e., understandable), if not necessarily more editable, to lay people.
The new described species rate is something entirely different than the baseline rate of evolution. New species will always (or at least for a very long time) greatly outpace evolution because currently over 80% of extant species on earth have yet to be discovered/described. New taxa “generated” via splitting is a relatively small drop in the bucket.
1 Like
The average person in Ohio understands that a select few scientists have the privilege to travel to exotic locations where they discover previously un-described species. These types of discoveries are regularly broadcast far and wide. Other, less privileged scientists study local species that have already been described. They look for local adaptations that might correctly lead them to the conclusion that they’ve discovered a new and important (what I view as) sub-species. From a human perspective, I could understand why the less privileged, local scientists might enjoy the same celebration for the same solitary work. This is why sub-species are deserving of a color other than green when their more complicated “research” grading is confirmed via the new technology used to describe them. This also inherently means that future observations of sub-species by lay-people be held to the same standard (confirmation of technology used to observe the applicable trait along with evidence of that trait). If these (what I view as) sub-species were celebrated with a prestigious color (I vote for gold), it might encourage local scientists to figure out which adaptation of say, Trillium flexipes is best adapted for my woodland garden. These types of discoveries are more important to my region than the discovery of an obscure frog in the Amazon. I mean, I like hearing about the frog and all, but would you want me to add one to my woodland garden?
What you are describing here is an ecotype which isn’t a taxonomic division, but incredibly useful and under-researched. I don’t think taxonomy is the place to promote such distinctions, but I absolutely think science surrounding ecotypes should be further developed. And I agree that more information on ecotype is relevant to a wide diversity of people. Anyway, I’m going to end my side of the conversation here, because we’re getting further and further from the original topic.
2 Likes
It is not true that the only way to make a discovery is to travel to some “exotic” part of the world. Even in (affluent, privileged) and relatively well-studied parts of the world (e.g., places like Ohio) it is far from the case that every single species has been studied and described. There are many groups of organisms that, on the whole, we still know very little about. These are more likely to be small and uncharismatic organisms (say, parasitic wasps or microfungi) that don’t make the news, but this does not mean they do not exist or that there are no researchers working to describe them. I have observations of three different organisms that are likely specific known but as-yet undescribed species. They were all found within walking distance of my apartment in urban central Europe.
Again, what new technology is being used to describe subspecies, and why are subspecies more exciting or prestigious than species?
Taxonomic ranks (genus, species, subspecies) are to a certain extent relative – what one taxonomy considers to be a species may be a subspecies in a different taxonomy. There is no absolute rule that determines when one form is different enough from another form that it should be considered a new species – or for that matter, even a distinct subspecies rather than just part of the natural variation.
This is really what is at the heart of the dandelion debate: whether the current taxonomies that categorize one type of variation in terms of distinct microspecies is the best or most useful way of describing this.
5 Likes
I maintain… there is entirely too much focus within the scientific community on a single rank… species.
1 Like
I think it is important to consider the reason that there is so much focus on species - it is the only rank that carries (or at least is intended to carry) some sort of real-world biological meaning. While there are many different definitions of species (due to differences in philosophy or differences in the underlying biology of the organism being considered), most definitions are intended to capture something “real”. For most organisms, this means trying to place the dividing line of species-level differences between groups that are not able to freely interbreed (with many caveats). All ranks above species are arbitrary. Speciation is a real-world process that can be studied, while there is no real-world process that leads to divisions between genera or kingdoms. Similarly, ranks below species are also somewhat fuzzy and arbitrary because they usually do not correspond to groups that can’t interbreed (otherwise they would be species, not subspecies).
The reason that dandelions are such a mess is that they have some very crazy biology that has led to this microspecies situation that really challenges our understanding of what a species is. The vast majority of species do not do what dandelions are doing. We are also stuck trying fit discrete categories onto a continuum - speciation is a process, and it is hard to know exactly where to draw the line and say that it it is “complete” or has gone at least far enough to call the two things different species. Dandelions seem to be going through the process of speciation, but we are caught with just a snapshot in time - it is unclear whether they will continue to evolve separately or whether they are ephemeral groups that will eventually collapse back together. Their method of reproduction makes it much more difficult to agree on species boundaries than it would be in most other plants.
8 Likes
This is precisely why the rank shouldn’t be allowed to grow faster than the baseline rate of evolution due to advancement in technology. To allow this would eliminate the ability for those applying science to measure their success at preserving species.