It’s not, which is why I never defined it as such. “Some ambiguity about where the species boundary is” was deliberately vague. My point was that, despite initial impressions, there is no ambiguity with Empids.
That probably works for arthropods. In the case of birds there’s often an auditory component to the ID. In the case of Empids, it’s usually the main component. Empid ID in the field is not hard, at least in the spring; it’s just hard on iNaturalist because the key ID points can’t be captured in a photograph.
I added to my notes regarding that observation. But, that observation was part of a series across a couple of years, using the same methodology, which was explained in earlier posts.
So, although the post now reads, “topic resolved,” based on the various responses, that would seem to be false. But, I don’t think any real solution is forthcoming. One thread was to confirm with vocalizations. I did so. Another was a weakness in the platform or a preference for eBird, particularly for Empidonax (perhaps, by extension, with other cryptic or ambiguous species). I will dutifully remove my Empidonax uploads, which are really useless for research in this venue.
This observation, from a year later, May 16, 2023, was posted from the same site using the same methodology, but without mentioning the call at all. It was confirmed, too. A little consistency at iNat’s end would be nice. Shall I delete it as well? https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/162073152
Of course I will. I see the utility of iNat for research, overall, and use it (and eBird) data for student research projects I mentor. But, I feel there is some inconsistency with regard to species deemed ambiguous, and I will refrain from uploading such species to iNat. I realize this adds another layer of sample bias to the platform, but I don’t see a remedy.
I think because you seem to post mostly observations of birds, odonates, and butterflies (all of which have high ID rates), you don’t realize that quite a few taxa take years to reach Research Grade.
Welcome to a platform that is mostly volunteer driven. Different identifiers have different thresholds of what they are willing to ID. If this platform doesn’t meet your needs, then by all means move on and don’t be nasty about it.
Seems like you already deleted the observations in question. At this point, is there any reason this thread need remain open? It feels like it’s devolved into a pretty unproductive conversation.