Offical Inaturalist stance on similar looking species

General
1

If there are similar species where one needs male genitalia or morphometrics to differ them but some appear more commonly in specific habitats then others (others can still appear there but more rarely) and some having often a different color sceme then the rest but the rest can also get that …. is it ok to leave the id to species level or is the Inat stance to revert it to a higher taxon (species complex or genus) as it still could be something else, even if the likelyhood is low ?

I do not want to hear other peoples opinion about it but the offical Inaturalist Stance for this topic if possible

2

I don’t think there is an “official” stance on this, because how “low” a likelihood of a different species is is different in every case. To give two extreme examples:

-virtually every Corn Earworm Moth (Helicoverpa zea) photo on iNat could hypothetically be a different Helicoverpa, as several of the species are identical in photos, but the community has collectively decided that since none of the lookalikes have ever been confirmed in the Nearctic region, these are taken to species in that region

-the two eastern Nearctic Halysidota moths are identical in photos, though one of them feeds only on sycamore trees. In regions where both are possible, these are all taken back to genus, even if the likelihood of one or the other is favored based on habitat (seen under a sycamore tree vs. seen in a park with no sycamore trees) because there’s a substantial chance that either species could have flown there.

iNat can’t put out a single statement on how to treat these cases though, because every single case with cryptic species involved has its own set of likelihoods at different locations, and even trying to quantify what those likelihoods are is nearly impossible.

It’s certainly not the case that iNat’s stance is “only identify to species if there is a 0% chance that it could be anything else”- whole swaths of observations could never be identified. But it’s also not its stance that if one species is more likely than the other (as in 51%-49%) it’s okay to just call it the slightly more likely option- this would create millions of misidentifications. I’d imagine most people aim more toward “beyond a reasonable doubt” as opposed to “preponderance of evidence” as their standard. But I’m not sure what “official” guidance on something like this would even look like. If you personally think multiple species are reasonably possible, then leave the ID at a higher level. But iNat can’t tell you what “reasonably possible” means- the goal is for everyone to decide for themselves, and let the community ID emerge from the disagreement.

4

From https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000170241-what-is-an-identification-:

Add identifications at a taxonomic level that you are confident of and that is supported by the evidence provided in the observation. For example, if based on the evidence in the observation, you think it could be either a Short-tailed Weasel (Mustela erminea) or a Long-tailed Weasel (Mustela frenata), but you’re not quite sure or the evidence isn’t clear enough, you should add an identification of Weasels (genus Mustela).

You should be able to independently confirm your identification and be able to defend and explain it, citing evidence if asked.

5

Those two weasel species are not in the same genus and don’t overlap geographically, thanks to taxonomic revisions, so no longer the best example. :-)

6

Very broadly speaking, if there is significant ambiguity then it is best to leave it at a higher taxonomic level.

There are exceptions, but is the general recommendation, keeping in mind that a recommendation is not the same thing as policy.

7

For the FAQ they probably want to have a simple example to make it easy to explain, but I feel like it’s actually valuable to have a more convoluted example like this (in addition to a simpler example probably) because so many identifications do involve somewhat convoluted taxonomy.

To elaborate: It used to be Mustela erminea and Mustela frenata and then the lowest common taxon was genus Mustela. But M. erminea and Mustela were both split so that now the relevant North American species are M. richardsonii and Neogale frenata, with the lowest common taxon being subfamily Mustelinae.

8

But it was a good example until the mammal taxonomists messed things up.

9

I wonder if there are any taxa with particularly stable taxonomy over time, so we can just use them for examples…

10

There is also quite a range of opinions on whether an observation with an ambiguous photo should be ranked down to the best ID possible by use of a disagreeing ID or not.

For example, if someone posts a photo of a plant with a species-level ID and the diagnostic features for that species are not visible in the photo, but the species occurs where it was observed, I generally add a non-disagreeing genus ID, since I consider it plausible that it could be that species and the observer saw it in person, where I am reduced to the available image (this falls apart when one considers that the observer may have had no idea and just followed the CV suggestion).

Other users will add a disagreeing ID to bump the observation down to genus if the evidence provided is not enough to confidently ID to species. I don’t know if either approach is wrong, or better or worse than the other. Others have much stronger opinions.

11

Staying with North American mammals with partially overlapping ranges, the two deer species in Odocoileus (Mule and White-tailed Deer) could work. Familiar to most naturalists and occasionally not IDable below genus in some photos. Plus, they are known to hybridize.

12

Nylanderia vividula and terricola go brrr. I’ve taken to calling everything in my area terricola until I have evidence to disprove that since vividula tends darker. Crazy how much of a match that is.

13

If species ID is uncertain from photos, location, and observation field data you should bump to the higher taxon (per the documentation and community consensus). There are many genera on iNaturalist, especially among arthropods, where this is commonly the case and bumping to species complex or genus is routine.

14

i tend to assume that the observer knows about things that were not or could not be captured in the observation, and so i tend not to disagree when making a higher level identification unless i can be fairly certain the observer probably didn’t consider all possible taxa. either way, sometimes i’ll add notes to indicate what alternative taxa could be possible.

15

Apologies to the OP. What follows has nothing to do with any official iNat policy which probably doesn’t exist.

I use both, depending on circumstances. When I was using the community ID in exported data, I tended to enter hard disagreements, and/or shepherd observations to RG with the correct ID (by, for example, tagging other identifiers). These days, I’m just exporting my own personal IDs, so I’m more inclined to use soft disagreements, and I don’t put any work into shepherding IDs. But I’ll hard disagree if I think it’s appropriate.

Consider the extreme example where an observer submits an extremely blurry photo (just a blob), or a photo that doesn’t even contain the organism in question with a note saying " I saw it and it was species so-and-so ". I’ve seen examples of observations exactly like this, and my position is that I can only assess the evidence presented. I feel submitting an unidentifiable photo in this way is a form of cheating, as it subverts the rule that observations without a photo would normally be “casual”. The observer is trying to submit a “sight” observation as if it was a “photo” observation.

There was a case where a fellow expert that I know IRL - a professional entomologist who is very well acquainted with the group in question - submitted a photo of a specimen in his net. Not something they glimpsed in flight, or only captured in a sketchy photo that didn’t show field marks. A clear photo of a specimen that was collected. He misidentified it based on circumstances - it was found it in habitat where he expected a similar, but different species. He saw it when he collected/photographed it, and he saw it again when he submitted the photo to iNat. When a couple of us said “Uh…are you seeing something that we’re not seeing?”, he replied “What the?”…
I always use this as an example of why we should be careful when it comes to people recounting what they think they saw. If a professional who is familiar with the species in question can misidentify a collected specimen - where they can examine it at leisure - shouldn’t we take “sight” observations with a grain of salt? People often assume that if we question a claim, it’s because we are questioning their skill/honesty. I’m not saying we should completely discount clarifying notes (for one particular pair of similar species, I regularly accept a note that the observer saw a particular detail that doesn’t appear in the photo). Imagine if there was no photo or specimen, and this observer had simply said they saw the species at this particular location. Although it was at a location where the species has never been reported (it would have been a range extension), we might have said “well, it’s so-and-so, he couldn’t have got the ID wrong…”.

Another example (same pair of species) - about a year ago I had someone contact me for advice on where/how to look for a particular species, far outside its known range. When I pointed out that the species was extremely unlikely to turn up so far away (hundreds of kilometers beyond its known range), they pointed out that the species had been recently reported not that far away. I couldn’t find any such observation on iNat, and they told me the observation reported in an enthusiast magazine (vs a scientific journal). They sent me a photo of the image that appeared in the magazine, and it was pretty clearly not the species in question. I shared the photo with a bunch of people familiar with both species (including the entomologist mentioned above), and everyone agreed that the ID was incorrect. I pointed this out to the magazine’s editor, and they chose to stand by the ID. Not really that surprising considering their personality, but that’s beside the point.

It’s well known that peoples’ memories of what they see can be unreliable. Whenever I see something unusual, I try very hard to capture an unequivocal photo. If I fail, I might say to someone “Yeah, I think I might have seen species X, but I can’t prove it”. When it comes to extraordinary claims, they should be supported by extraordinary evidence, regardless of the source.

16

Rick, you reminded me of when David said a similar thing. I find this to be a valuable reminder, and I re-read it every so often:

17

Exactly. The evidence needs to be present in the media presented to be worth considering. If our standard is “believe what people say they saw if they’re really certain of it”, then I suggest we add taxa for Bigfoot, Nessie, several alien speies (Tall Grays, Short Grays, and Greens at the minimum), Mothman, the Jersey Devil, Florida Skunk Ape, Mokele-mbembe, etc. Perfectly reasonable people can be shockingly mistaken in what they think they saw, all of us included. I personally have memories of bird IDs I made early on in my birding experience that seem extremely unlikely in hindsight, and I don’t trust my own memory enough to count them. Show me someone who insists “I know what I saw!” and I’ll show you someone who puts way too much trust in the objectivity of human memory.

18

Another way of thinking about my “extraordinary claims…” statement is to consider whether or not giving an observer the benefit of the doubt will cause direct or indirect “harm”.

An example of direct harm might be if the observation results in a range extension - or for seasonal creatures, an observation that is outside the expected season.

An example of indirect harm might be the setting of a precedent where an observation goes RG based on iffy evidence. There’s always the danger of a race to the bottom wrt quality of evidence (“you ID’d that other observation with a poor photo, why not mine?”).

For those who agonize over whether a valuable observation may be missed in this way, there’s always the option of the observer going back to get a better photo. (see anecdotes below) If it really is a “once in a lifetime observation”, because the individual was a stray or an accidental transport, the value of the observation to anyone besides the observer is debatable. If the evidence is solid - fine. If it isn’t, we should err on the side of caution.

Stories about “going back to get a better photo”:

A few years back, somebody posted a puzzling photo on iNat, and identified it as Bog Copper. Back then, my turnaround on IDs was faster, probably because the workload was lighter. I looked at the observation the same day that the observation was made, or maybe the morning after at the latest. I looked at it, and it didn’t look quite right for Bog Copper, but the butterfly was a bit battered, and there was only a ventral view. The location didn’t appear to have the right habitat either (no bogs or fens). The season was wrong for the other obvious candidate - Dorcas Copper. There was a 3rd possibility - Purplish Copper - but I’m less familiar/confident with that species. It has rarely been reported anywhere near the location in question. The species is a bit of a sasquatch in fact (gets reported once in an area, then disappears, only to appear again decades later). I posted something to the effect that “too bad you weren’t able to get a more conclusive photo, we’ll probably never know for sure”. As it turned out, the observer was in the area on business, and had stayed overnight. He nipped back to the site and captured a bunch of photos that removed all doubt - they were Purplish Coppers. To my mind, this is a bit of an “iNaturalist miracle”, that couldn’t have happened in the olden days. Back then, the original ID of Bog Copper would have stood, and decades later folks would have debated about whether or not to believe it. Even if the observer could have shown their (analogue) photos to somebody, it likely would have been weeks or months after the fact. Sure, they could go back to try again, but it would have to be the following year. Once people started sharing digital photos via email, a scenario like this might have just barely become possible, if the observer happened to email an image to the right person immediately after taking it, and that person replied right away. Thanks to the fast turnaround made possible by iNat (and a little luck), a significant discovery was made.

Another story about “going back to get a better picture” can be found here: https://www.ontarioinsects.org/publications/Summaries/2016_bog_elfin.pdf

19

Rick, I appreciate your voice:

One should always exercise caution when visiting bogs. Floating bogs can be precarious. One misstep can land you in a future “bog person” display in a museum. Even drier bogs are often surrounded by moats or “lags”, which can be hard to cross without making a “row vs wade” type choice.

For any younger readers:

  • When he says “bog person”, Rick is referring to exhibits like Tollund Man, as well as similar finds
  • “Row vs wade” is play on words for Roe v Wade, which was a famous US Supreme Court decision about abortion in 1973

PS: The iNat blog is currently (2026 Oct) featuring something called “Behind the Observation”, and Rick’s article is a longer-form version of that.

20

I keep meaning to post a more complete version of the Purplish Copper story somewhere so I can link to it. I wrote it up as an email, complete with photos, and I’ve sent it to numerous people (as an example of what can happen when everything goes just right). I just keep forgetting to do it.

21

I wish I could take credit for that one. I think I saw a photo once of an old row boat floating in a stream - paint pealing, etc. Scrawled on the bow was “row vs wade”. Something like that.

I suppose the play on words has an extra layer to it. When you find there’s no easy way to cross a lag, you can get a boat (row), jump in (wade), or abort.