For fungi there is no single globally accepted source of taxonomic opinion. Neither SpeciesFungorum or MycoBank come remotely close. Neither currently has the resources/expertise necessary to continually scan the literature and make informed judgement calls. Small subsets of taxa may be curated, but not the entire kingdom. IndexFungorum (on which SpeciesFungorum is built) and MycoBank are nomenclatural repositories, not primarily taxonomic. In both the taxonomic changes that do happen are largely a by-product of nomenclatural registration of new names/combinations. Just because new combinations are published doesn’t mean the taxonomic opinion they contain should be automatically accepted. And revisions that don’t include nomenclatural novelties are invisible to both. The current reality is that iNat itself is the best taxonomic compilation for the groups that are most observed on iNat. That’s down to a few very dedicated curators over the years and the essential feedback provided by the community.
And yet fungi folks tell me that these are too out of date to be used.
I did a quick check using this paper from July 2025.
Checked Phaeolus occidentiamericanus on both sites and this new name is there and properly referenced.
Granted, this is a single case but with IF administered by Kew Gardens now I would expect attention like that given to POWO.
As Jerry said above, IF/SF are primarily intended for nomenclature, not taxonomy.
They’re good if you need to dig up a species, see what the (potential) synonyms are, see where a species was described from, see if there as an extant holotype and what the voucher # for it is or if it is s.n. (sine numero,) without number (more or less it was described without a designated type), see who described it, look up relevant paper citations for the descriptions… etc.
It lags behind pretty severely when it comes to taxonomic revisions though, and the synonymies need to be taken with a large grain of salt.
Unfortunately, I identify a lot, and also flag a lot, but I don’t have time to add data for so many flags.
If you flag, you owe it to the curator to cite your source. Your response time will be quicker if you don’t expect the curator to do that for you. But ultimately up to you.
New-ish iNat user here. I’m a little late to the discussion but I would love some easily-accessible guidance on what the curators are looking for. I’m wondering if it would be practical to add a link on the taxon flag page that takes the user to a short guidance document?
I’ve seen a few flags where the curator left comments indicating they were reluctant to add a taxon.. so far I’ve seen:
- because the flagger didn’t present any examples of verifiable observations,
- the flagger didn’t present scientific articles proving the species or hybrid existed (this was more for a hybrid),
- and/or didn’t present evidence as to how much DNA a hybrid has from each parent (not looking to start a debate on hybrids.. just explaining why the curator might have wanted extra proof since hybrids are weird sometimes).
I’ve been reluctant to provide too much info and overwhelm the curator. But if I know they want it, I’ll gladly provide it.
Questions I have about creating a flag would be:
- How many observations do the curators want (if I find ten or twelve, should I post links to all of them? Or just do one or two representative ones)?
- Do they have to be verifiable observations with the location and date specified, or is it enough if the specimen is wild/feral?
- What, if any, proof do the curators want that the species or hybrid exists?
- Are there any pieces of info that users often leave out, or anything else a user should keep in mind when adding a flag?
For plants, it seems to be sufficient to link to its taxon page on POWO.
I mostly flag for plants. Add the POWO link to flag. And I leave a link to the obs (otherwise I wouldn’t find it again)
I think a link to one obs is fine. Simple proof that the taxon is needed. Not - ‘please add all the possible sp’
Hybrid flags - I stay away from. I do use the available ones.
I am not a Curator tho.
@jenn1199 I see that most of your many IDs (Thanks!) are for mammals, whereas I mostly work with plants. So there will be different taxonomic authorities and curator preferences may also be quite different.
For what it’s worth, here are my rules of thumb:
How many observations do the curators want…
If a non-hybrid taxon is requested individually and supported by our relevant authority (POWO), or there’s consensus (via comments on a flag) to add it as a deviation from that authority, then I’ll add it even with zero observations. For wild hybrids, I’d like to see enough observations and/or mentions in literature sufficient to make clear that this isn’t a rare occurrence. For horticultural hybrids, I set a higher bar and try to add only those that have naturalized or that appear quite frequently in cultivated observations.
Do they have to be verifiable observations with the location and date specified, or is it enough if the specimen is wild/feral?
So long as an observation appears to be genuine (and identifiable as the taxon in question), I wouldn’t be too concerned that it’s missing a date or location. If there are no verifiable observations for a hybrid, that might be a red flag.
What, if any, proof do the curators want that the species or hybrid exists?
Ideally, acceptance by an iNat taxonomic authority. Failing that, clear documentation in a one or more scientific papers. If some there are sources disputing the supposed species/hybrid, I’d be a lot more circumspect.
Are there any pieces of info that users often leave out, or anything else a user should keep in mind when adding a flag?
Links to sources. Also any rationale for adding the new species, e.g. “No observations yet on iNat, but this 2023 paper by Smith and Jones gives a clear key distinguishing the species from others in the area.” Or “Garcia and Chan (2022) demonstrated that this hybrid is substantially more common than previously thought, and can be identified by x, y and z.”
Hi, I primarily deal with fungi, so take this response with that bias in mind.
-
One is sufficient for me, just have a reason for it - either a sequenced observation matching a type, or a good match to morphology, habitat, etc that supports calling it that species
-
Probably not super relevant for fungi, but IMHO a living organism is a living organism, and even if it is captive there is value in adding a name to a sytem. To give an example: Franklinia alatamaha, the Franklin Tree, is extinct in the wild - all potential pictures of this species on iNat should, theoretically, be marked captive (AFAIK they aren’t really a species that volunteers readily, though of course there is a chance sprouts could escape from captivity.) That said, even though all extant members are likely in captivity, if the name weren’t already on iNat it would be INCREDIBLY appropriate to add it to the site - captive photos may be the only real records we have of some rarer species.
3.) Generally for fungi, either a link to the describing paper (if very new) or a link to the taxonomic information on the species in one of the name repositories like Indexfungorum or Mycobank. These sites usually contain the citations for the describing paper that we can look up.
- I guess beyond adding paper sources, just some justification as to why you think the name should be added to iNat. Again for fungi, there’s going to be little utility in going through really old names and trying to add absolutely everything - some of these species haven’t been reported since they were described, and many old fungal descriptions are so brief that it is almost impossible to connect the species to a modern species concept, so they’re likely going to just end up names lost to time. Adding them without a modern study being done would mostly be a waste of time. That said, if it is a NEW publication and there is reason to believe that the name will be used, even if there are no current observations I’d probably be able to be convinced to add it - especially since modern descriptions are usually connected to sequenced holotypes, and it’s nice to not to have to chase a curator down to add a new name when something gets sequenced and matches a holotype.
I’ve made an issue for this for our engineers.
Well, a new sentence was added, we’ll see if it makes a difference. Decided against adding a lot of text because it’s unlikely people will read that.
Curious if anyone has, anecdotally, seen an uptick in taxon flags that cite sources?
As someone who has submitted a couple flags recently bc of scientific news articles, I haven’t had any trouble but I also submitted the science-y piece. I guess personally, I don’t understand how the curators manage the taxon changes without supporting scientific info from the requester, but I’m not a curator. One flag was added without further discussion; the second was also added although the curator did search for observations first.
@nschwab have you? You look at more flags than me.
I’m not sure, because I am mostly aware of the needed changes. But this is definitely a good thing to include a phrase to ask for a source.
In the spirit of newfound dialog, in response to “Curious if anyone has, anecdotally, seen an uptick in taxon flags that cite sources?”
Well, i focus my attention nearly exclusively on taxon flags, usually limited to Arthropoda. I’m glad to say that anecdotally then yes, i think there’s now a good deal more that do give a link etc, which i think counts as “Citing source”.
It is however, and entirely different question as to whether the stated ‘source’ is current or even desirable, but from my end it’s often super-helpful to know how/where the person noticed the concern. Usually adding a taxon is simple and straightforward as it should be. Online sources may argue about which of multiple name-combinations is best, but even then adding one of the recent combinations can be better than not, to get it a missing name in the system somewhere and then finer questions started if needs be.
For context, for an age, i’ve been trying to get a handle on which online sources, especially so called ‘authoritative databases’, are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for different arthropod lineages. By those terms i can partly mean recently updated, but one one hand some newer ones are still only partly built, several older ones are static and neglected. So i also also the care and effort in what is accessible (to whichever cutoff date). That i think is still the challenge for many at the taxonomy curation end, which sources to follow - especially for inexperienced curators and those trying to help out in taxonomic groups beyond their direct experience,