I’m wondering this too. I admittedly drop lots of arthropods, insects, and Pterygota into Diptera, and will try to pick suborder now instead.
If people could manage Nematocera, and perhaps the Brachycera groups Orthorrhapha, Aschiza and Schizophora, that would divvy them up fairly well. Next handy division down from that would be Schizophora into acalyptrates and Calyptrata. But I’m happy with anything the higher-level sorters can do! I also have to remember that I should spend some time every so often to fork through the piles at Arthropoda, Insecta and Diptera.
@sbushes Nearctic Conopidae and Rhagionidae were in decent shape, though the last year or two need catching up on. The main problem, as mentioned, is the number of identifiers even for currently identified families. There’s just no defence in depth. So it gets back to attracting new identifiers, especially for continents other than North America and Europe.
Two other problems are that the great age of collector/taxonomists has passed, fewer are being trained, and so there are fewer entomologists to describe and identify new species. The number of valuable publications behind paywalls is also discouraging.
Afivewave is right, though, many families contain very, very similar species that will usually defy ordinary photo IDs. The Syrphid Squad are very good, but groups like sedgesitters, leafwalkers, many Syrphinae, etc. require precise details. Crane flies have come a very long way in the last three or four years, but again, the number of genera that require male genital close-ups for species is significant. That includes many of the largest genus, Tipula (~2,500 spp. worldwide, ~500 in North America). Sarcophagids are often unidentifiable beyond subfamily without dissection. It goes on!
On the plus side, I’ve been on iNaturalist long enough (though only six years) to see great improvements in the number of fly species now identifiable in the Nearctic, where I live. The CV can now recommend many more species, fairly reliably. I hope that’s a general fact, even though the Nearctic and western Palaearctic probably have more observers and identifiers than much of the world.
A few people have said that an obstacle is when species require microscopic features like terminalia to separate. I don’t understand why this is a problem–it just means we should mark “community ID cannot be improved further” in cases like these.
My “Identify” tool does this automatically when you use the logged-in version: https://edankow.github.io/identify/
Thanks very much to both you and @rodrigodios for identifying lots of my diptera observations overnight! And thank you for taking the time to add such detailed explanations, which I am nominating (and voting for) as Useful Identification Tips, so they will potentially help other observers, even if I myself never quite manage to get adequate photos, or to grasp the subtleties of wing venation patterns or tibia coloration…
Seeing all the replies now has me thinking. I’m curious what expert identifiers who make the species ids find most useful (maybe this could be better as a new thread, but there’s already been some discussion here)
I do ids by searching arthropods identified to the order level at best. I don’t tend to do very specific ids (I’ve gotten better at hemiptera, but for flies, definitely not). I can sort nematocera (and further down in nematocera)/orthorrhapha/aschiza/calyptrata/acalyptrate most of the time (a few of them throw me off…). But sometimes I just sort between nematocera/brachycera. I’m wondering now if it’s not very useful when I often could go deeper. That is, I want to be able to reach the specialists, and maybe I’d just be passing work off onto other higher-level iders
Like, I’m going through all these observations for my area and now I’m to 2 years back. Clearly there’s been a lot left unsorted for a very long time, many of which are clear pictures with no reason why they couldn’t be sorted. I wonder if I’m the only person for the next several years who would get back so far, and if I leave it id’d to brachycera, maybe the specialists will never see it…
I agree, and send a huge thanks to those of you with the skill to ID flies! As a beginner I do my best, and appreciate those with expertise very much. Our native flies are so varied, often beautiful, and such important pollinators.
Ah yes, added!
Xespok was previously supporting Rhinophoridae as well as Rhagionidae I think also.
And I see Jurantis has done a bunch there too now… so perhaps that family also
…and Bombyliidae too ?!
In most families though, even if there are 1 or 2 people working on them… there is still so much to do at a global scale… it still doesn’t suffice.
Thats still of benefit though - everything counts! Sometimes I actively sort through the mid level groups to find stuff which has got stuck or which I can take further. I regularly filter by Brachyceran. But also I think don’t be fearful to tag in others who can help place to family when you’re stuck (and to ask for pointers on what takes to family if you want to learn) at least for me I’m more than happy to be tagged in this context.
I agree its true that if not placed to family they may take even longer to be seen by the people that will truly refine them though. Personally I do tend to sort from order/suborder…or at family levels/ superfamily levels if I’m in the mood for more detailed work…more than the mid-levels.
I don’t think 2 years is that long relative to most areas globally for diptera…
But which area?
But also I think don’t be fearful to tag in others who can help place to family when you’re stuck (and to ask for pointers on what takes to family if you want to learn) at least for me I’m more than happy to be tagged in this context.
Ah thank you! I haven’t known who to ask on flies. I’ve been trying to get to know many of the nematocerans especially. But it’s rather daunting all around. And some of the flies seem quite similar (like many of the flies…I think ah, another classic fly with a stripey back I struggle to differentiate among the calyptrates or even just schizophora)
I don’t think 2 years is that long relative to most areas globally for diptera…
But which area?
It seems such a long time to me. And I’m still working my way back. I’m doing Hampton Roads, in southeast Virginia, USA. I’ve also done central Indiana
It definitely shows that I see the same few people doing ids in the same region all the time. I guess that might make me one of them now
Anything helps!!!
There’s plenty of Diptera stuck in the depths of the “unknown” tab
@sbushes Aaa thank you for all the tips
Now I’ve been thinking further. It’s difficult to know how to id when you’re learning on your own. I’ve learned a lot about bugs over…20ish years. But that’s as a hobby. I can learn many things, but it’s not very systematic/comprehensive in learning. And only some of it is useful for id purposes. I’m a bit embarrassed to admit I didn’t know what calypters are. If I was to sort between calyptrate/acalyptrate, my methods are “does it look like the subset of things that belong to that category”. I wouldn’t be surprised if I read about calypters long ago but glossed over it because I often didn’t want to hear about anatomy specifics. But here I am. Doing bug id XD With more of an actual purpose to know such parts of anatomy now, I want to know
Fascinating tool, could this be expanded to other taxa?
A number of chiro taxa seem destined to become waste bins. I somewhat have given up on trying to correct everything in needs ID. What is or isn’t a waste bin is almost entirely due to the CV and user actions when they agree with it.
There’s multiple 1000s of observations uploaded a week.
You know, I’ve said this before, but you do not have to feel that you are responsible for all chironomid observations worldwide. All you need is someone who is interested in learning one genus or tribe in one region and they can help correct wrong IDs and clean up that taxon.
I will say non-biting midges have become my favorite fly family. They’re pretty and many of them have quite distinctive looks (as in helpful for id’ing as non-biting midges). But I don’t know how to id further down than family level…
Well, Chironomidae are pretty cool, with the fancy male headgear. I’d join a team to correct enough of the inaccurate narrow IDs to inhibit the CV from continually entrenching the problem. As I understand it, there’s been some improvement in earthworm accuracy thanks to a concerted effort, though I don’t know its current status.
Some taxa for correcting are as easy as, if it’s female, it shouldn’t be IDed to that unless very specific circumstances.
I would be open to trying to teach people things, maybe make some smaller guides. I actually have some half finished.
That’s so nice! I could definitely teach you about them.
Aaa thank you!
I wish I knew what features to look for specifically. Like, many of them look like this:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/557882-Chironomus-ochreatus
Thin abdomen that’s longer than the wings, long front legs held in a certain way. But not all of them look like this