North American Sinea ID and the Sorcerer's Apprentice problem

[upupa-epops]

@chuuuuung

ID feedback - if a suggested ID keeps getting disagreed with back to a higher rank (genus, species complex, subfamily, etc), then the algorithm takes the hint and stops suggesting that species at the species level

More specific description of this approach:

@dlevitis

One way of making it clear how hard it is to ID each species that would be completely automated and harder to abuse would be to give each a “Percent of IDs disputed” or something similar. If every ID of a species is disputed (100%) that is a really hard thing to ID correctly. If IDs of that species are never disputed (0%) anyone might be able to ID it correctly.

This could be calculated as the ratio of number of observations ID as this that also have conflicting IDs over the total number of observations ever IDed as this. Potential identifiers could even search for things with initial IDs with less than x% disputed.

[cotinis]

This is a very thoughtful comment and I am trying to understand some of the issues. I understand what you are saying, but I have occasionally run across cases where the specifics of the sexual organs do seem to be the only diagnostic characters among invertebrate species. I was just working on one group this past weekend–the “pixie” robber flies, Leptogaster species and others in that subfamily. Looking at what primary literature I could find, referenced in that observation, it seems the taxonomist working in that genus said all the other characters are inconsistent–coloration, size, etc. I believe they even mentioned that wing vein patterns are not always reliable. (Oof–I’ve never been able to understand wing veins well, but they are usually diagnostic for groups of flies.)

I get the impression the same thing is true of many beetle genera, such as Phyllophaga. The comprehensive guide I have for scarabs in my area (Harpootlian, Scarab Beetles of South Carolina) keys based on very detailed combinations of mostly microscopic characters, like tarsal claws, as well as adeagus, etc. The descriptions discuss some habitus differences among species, but there is no identifying them without dissection of a male. I get the impression the key is using those because they are consistent, whereas more obvious differences are not.

I need to investigate this topic further. Somewhere I saw a reference to a monograph on insect sexual organs and their role in reproductive isolation. I’ve also seen mention in one problematic group, Phengodes (Phengodidae), that the male sexual organs are not useful in separating species. It is complicated.