New taxa not in INat for some species and taxa synonyms problems


I have tried to add a species of rare fly but the taxa doesn’t seem to exist in INaturalist. What should I do ? (I’m sorry if it is a frequent question). I have use a “signet” but It looks like it disapeared (?) (maybe because a suggestion at the Diptera Order was made ?)
Here are the 2 observations :
Even after some search, I’m still pretty sure of the ID (Myopina myopina (Diptera, Family Anthomyiidae)) and I think there is no synonym for this taxa

And also I have enter a Bibio clavipes but it is not the same species as Bibio johannis
As there been any taxonomic changes to Bibio clavipes (an autumn species) and Bibio johannis (a spring species) ?
Link to the observation :
It’s been registered as Bibio johannis althought this is a completely different species

Best regards,

1 Like

In general, you flag the parent taxon, and leave a comment on your flag referencing the taxonomic authority that recognizes the species in question.

Be aware that iNat uses specific taxonomic authorities, however.

Not quite. :slightly_smiling_face: I see from the json that you put in a species_guess, but if that ID is not recognized by iNat (for missing taxon, but can also be due to typos, an upload issue, variant spelling, poor connection, etc), it becomes a Placeholder, not an ID. Placeholders are temporary and are lost as soon as an actual ID is made.
So it wasn’t lost because someone suggested Diptera, but because it was a placeholder.

1 Like

It’s probably because GBIF shows them as synonyms.

Welcome to the forum!
Before flagging, I would suggest “search external name providers”:

It’s possible you already did this – it failed to import when I tried it, though I’m not sure why. I would have expected it to call the EOL API, which does return a result:
Anyway, since it should have been imported from EOL, I went ahead and added Myopina myopina.

As for Bibio johannis, yes, it has clavipes as a synonym so iNat will force you to use johannis if you try to use clavipes. You can instead choose to enter a genus if you don’t want to accept the synonym.

This particular synonym came from EOL:

But as mentioned above, other sources also include clavipes as a synonym. I would say you should find a source to support your assertion that they are not synonyms and put that in a flag asking for a separate taxon for clavipes.


In addition to the other points, I would recommend that you not simply use placeholders, since as you’ve seen, they disappear as soon as someone else puts in an ID. If you use a higher taxon as a temporary thing, then place your specific ID in a comment, then it will remain visible as a reminder.


To be fair, Renko did include their taxon in the description, so it was still present even after the placeholder disappeared.


Synonymies, in external sources, can be false. In EOL, I have frequently found
a) that priority of names is reversed, or not indicated;
b) that there is no difference made between accepted synonymies, past synonymies, or misinterpretations of species (one species taken for another / names applied the wrong way for a certain time).

In the present case, it looks as if you are right with “two species”:,648,699,2045,1163&genus=Bibio#level_Bibio

I find no trace of assumed, or historic synonymy outside GBIF, or EOL. In such cases, if source is bugged, species has to be created manually by a curator. I wanted to, but there is malfunction. Need to leave the forum first? . . .

Taxon created with trick to avoid malfunction:

1 Like

Thanks to all of you for your kind and rich in informations replies !

I noticed too that on if you click on = Bibio clavipes Meigen, 1818
You get actual true Bibio clavipes pictures
and when you go on the Bibio johannis page, you actually get true Bibio johannis pictures

Also on Fauna Europaea the two taxa are separated with no sign of synonymy

Thanks you, yes I always do this step before flagging as I often had posted observations of insects species was never submitted before (like some european Ichneumonidae)

1 Like

Fair enough – I hadn’t actually checked these particular observations. I’d run into this issue with others, and figured it bore repeating.

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.