I’d say if you think an id might be correct, make the id. If it’s wrong, someone will correct you. Making confirmations is a different matter. You need to be pretty sure to confirm an observation with only one id, as it bumps it up to research grade. Use Moth Photographers Guide to get a sense of what the variation of the moth species is like. Ask for help. If you are unsure about the species, make a note outlining your thinking and what resources you have looked at (MPG also has links on each species that lead to other pages). I’ve been doing this for a while now, and sometimes it takes me an hour to confirm one moth. I still make mistakes, but have folks who will either correct or help me. I would also suggest starting with one specific group of moths - I rarely identify anything outside of Noctuidae. I’m in Canada, so may not be much help for LA species, but if you want, feel free to contact me.
The data on this site are actually not too bad - https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/identification-quality-on-inaturalist/7507
I think this is beyond any of our control other than recommending moth enthusiasts/experts to join the iNat community. Of course there are other factors such as where they are from, how willing they are to join, how busy they are etc. Personally I am proud to be a moth-er but I am just an enthusiast and also more familiar with the Hong Kong species (using iNat to learn their names and key features to look out for when making ID’s). Another reason could simply be the immense quantity of moth species compared to birds (less names to remember!)
Agree. There are not so many in Nocuidae, but there are common species that need observation of the genitalia to make a firm ID. Given the limitations of the site, probably Genus level is fine for these species. Oh, I should also mention that (at least for moths) Bugguide generally mentions that aspect.
I’m working on what a lot of iNatters and amateurs do (alluded to here by others):
be the identifiers you wish to see
find a need, start to study, pay it forward : ) Give me a decade and I’ll have just scratched the surface of tortricidae but it’ll happen. Many of the sites top identifiers are folks who’ve committed to study organisms to fill a need. I became such a person (admittedly not one with a ton of time for serious study currently) because of iNat and if you had asked me if I’d include dissecting microscope in my long-term list of tools I want a few years ago, I would have laughed and asked you what a dissecting microscope was.
If I knew of a species I could identify with confidence, I’d certainly help. As it is, when I go through unknowns I give insects a certain priority (as well as vertebrates, but not many vertebrates stay in the unknowns for long).
When I first started on iNaturalist, I thought one thing for sure I could do was ID Monarchs and Viceroys. But then I came across an observation of a viceroy with no division line on its hindwing and it was a wake-up call that even the obvious is not always so obvious. I’ve quit ID-ing them, unless I come across them in unknowns, but it turns out Monarchs and Viceroys are very well attended to anyways. I can only hope we get more specialists on to ID so that the more obscure species might get the same attention.
I do wish I could ID ladybugs better. That seems like it should be entirely feasible, and I’ve been documenting a lot of them in hopes of finding a native to North America. They seem variable, though, and the identifying guide at the lost ladybug project doesn’t always help.
@gcwarbler made progress on this for Cisthene moths: https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/17268-an-interview-with-gcwarbler
I chime in when I have time to help with ID’s of moths in Louisiana. Now that I have a lot of experience, I never ID to species level or confirm ID’s to that level unless I am very familiar with that Genus. On my own observations I use the same general rule except that if I am pretty confident I may go ahead and call it so that someone else could confirm if they agree and save them having to look it up also.
I don’t want anyone confirming mine to species level unless they have ruled out all other members of the Genus known to this state. That is easier than you might think on many Genus.
I love observing the moths. Big fan of Moth Photographers Group and Bug Guide for trying to figure out ID’s… Sometimes that can be overwhelming. I like to ID Moth leps for my county and surrounding area. Things can change as you get away from your normal area. I tell my cohorts to just ID what you are comfortable with. Like @mamestraconfigurata stated if you make a mistake, it will get corrected. I think this helps you learn. Here’s a link that is very detailed regarding Tortricids;
http://idtools.org/id/leps/tortai/tortricidae.html
At one point I was told I was not ID’ing enough by someone I think quite highly of. Since I like Moths and Odes most of all, that is what I regularly ID for my area.
Gee Rich I find plants very poorly represented based on my unconfirmed inputs. Birds are over-represented for sure. There are a number of moth experts with INAT accounts and extensive lists on their pages, I know Sue tries to help after dealing with her own massive input. Perhaps the problem is that most mothers are very busy with their projects at this tine of year and some then jump in during the down months. My biggest gripe is new folks who jump in with incorrect IDs or downgrade the suggested ID to family. That’s not helpful. Try BAMONA for more responsive ID help but that will depend on how dedicated the state coordinator is. I know NY and Nova Scotia have excellent folks these days.
I just started to observe insects a few weeks ago.
And it feels like a whole new world to learn about. :)
I use SEEK so this gives me a start for the ID.
I read much about insects in the last weeks as a cause of my observations and I really enjoy this new field of experiences.
Every day, I learn something new about them. :D
I have noticed that some of the regulars that used to ID moths, spiders, and in general, insects, have not been on, or IDing much anymore - or at least that seems to be true for my area - Houston/Texas/Gulf Coast.
For myself, I have been chastised for “guessing” on a species, or not fully engrossing myself in each species that I try to identify. I am not a specialist, or degree’d in the natural arts, but I am pretty good at identifying nature in my geographical area, and I’m a fast learner, and not afraid to admit I’m wrong. But because of the several somewhat harsh attitudes I have received, I am hesitant to ID anything I am not 90% sure of - I don’t even like taking a guess or making a suggestion.
So many people on here have been incredible in offering ID help and information, and have helped me become knowledgeable about so much more than when I joined iNat back in 2015, that I am hesitant to mention why I am more reserved, and slightly ashamed that my skin has grown thin enough to have this bother or affect me. Maybe it’s just the times, everyone is on edge.
I am fascinated by moths, and in awe of the diversity of their species - so I will try to make more IDs, at least to the family.
I’d also like to put a request out for people to ID fungi - that is another area that I find difficult to identify, and there is a definite a need for it! :)
Ibelieve in a topic about the prefered guides there were many books or resources about European arthropods, though I have to say that many of us use UK guides as they usually contain most of what you can find, but for southern parts you need either local guides or what I believe is better for insects, arachnids, etc. is to search a full key for the grop, usually one for subfamilies, then for genera in one of them and then for all species in a genera or Old World species. I usually search ResearchGate for them.
For me the newest group I’m interested in is Tipuloidea, and I found some guides for them.
https://ccw.naturalis.nl/documents/Stubbs_and_Kramer,_2016a.pdf (change “a” in the end of the link for next key (b,c,d…))
https://ccw.naturalis.nl/
I just keep on IDing despite or encouraged by negative feedback. As long as you remain active, keep learning, and withdraw IDs when errors are pointed out, what’s the harm? We’re not going to get more people interested/excited about currently unpopular taxa without somebody trying to ID things. Confirming an ID, yeah I stick to what I’m confident knowing. First ID to genus or species that’ll at least be close, sure I’ll take a stab at it. Some groups I start to learn, others I learn that I have way more to learn and may want to back off until I gather more knowledge.
I’ve also noticed that wrong IDs get more attention than not IDed. It’s a thorn in the side for many.
And finally, for the specialists that want exclusive reign over a taxonomic group… too bad. Maybe they should stick to cabinets and drawers of specimens and leave the community outreach to someone more skilled.
That is an interesting point, but it is highly dependent on how you look at the data. I have a project for Moths of Ontario and there are ~175,000 moth observations for the province. The last time that I had data, BAMONA had something like 10,000 or less observations for the province. It is obviously easier to ID 10K than 175K. Looking at it another way, 122,000 of those 175,000 iNat observations are at RG. So that is ‘only’ ~70%, but it is also something like 112,000 more confirmed observations for the same geographic area as there are on BAMONA.
Of course, if more people shift to BAMONA, then the demands will be higher and it may get overwhelmed. There is not a simple answer. I would note that iNat has quite few academics and professional biologists who contribute in families that they are familiar with. Either way, we should appreciate all the effort that we currently benefit from, especially as the number of observations continues to grow dramatically.
Maybe this topic will bring more people to the topic of insects. Even if more people start thinking:" hey… why not the fly on the fence?", we win.
Cause I think, more people starting to learn just little things about insects can start a chain of happenings…
It is like this saying about a butterfly which uses it’s wings and starts of something in the world.
So if anyone out there just feels ready to take a photo of a fly, come on, just do it. ;)
I understand that - I was put off from identifying Tabanidae by an obnoxious person. As I mentioned above, I do due diligence with moths, but still mistakes. Try (and it is hard for some of us) to carry on in spite of some negative comments.
… an easy way to begin with would be
(1) to search the “unknown” category and place things into some higher taxa, like birds, insects etc. Try the Neotropical reagion, it is fun!
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?nelat=17.9&nelng=-29.5&place_id=any&quality_grade=needs_id&swlat=-28.8&swlng=-110&iconic_taxa=unknown
(2) to go, for example, through insects at class level, and try to get them into Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Diptera etc. Try the USA:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=1&quality_grade=needs_id&taxon_id=47158
If you are doing that, not too much knowledge is needed… and it actally helps a lot.
… if we observe insects, it may be for biodiversity aspects. I am doing this for my back yard in Germany. In that sense, I am not so concerned about species or genus names, e.g., for wasps, but I would love to know how many different kind I have got. Subfamily or tribe is perfectly all right as long as this keeps the different ones apart.
I see a bigger problem with insects from the Neotropical, Oriental (except HK, SG, Taiwan) or African regions (except ZA): even distinctly different insects cannot be properly named, because the published literature is not avalable open-access and only professionals / rich people have access to all the books available. Best resources are BOLD (http://v3.boldsystems.org/index.php/TaxBrowser_Taxonpage?taxid=82), funet.fi (http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/), butterflies of America (https://www.butterfliesofamerica.com/L/Neotropical.htm) or moths of Africa (https://www.africanmoths.com/african_moth_specieslist.html), to give a few examples. Besides, iNaturalist is rapidly improving! The more people help with identifications, the better, let’s keep going… Thank you all!
I just wanted to let some newer Noctuid identifiers know that I have posted some simple guides to moth “field marks” and identifying features for some commonly found (and confused) moths. This is a link to my journal - https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/mamestraconfigurata The ID’s are the most recent entries.