I would like to jot down something on those users who, apparently, exhibit taxonomic skills just by citing a taxonomic backbone.
NB: I want to stress that this post is not against taxonomic backbones per se or against one specific backbone. I am in favour with the use of tools such as electronic databases as a general taxonomic reference for our taxonomy. Anyway, I think that many users could agree that such databases can be considered anything but perfect. And I think that this can have multiple good reasons. First, it can be humanly exspected that such databases can have errors. Then, they are often regularly updated and what can be read in a given moment can also change few days after. Moreover, they usually treat a huge number of taxa and, so, it is understandable that some taxa can be treated less meticulously than others. In the end, of course, they are the result of a given person’s point of view and taxonomy is often a matter of debate.
Given this premise, I still would like to express my concern on the fact that some users seem to rely much, maybe too much, or even solely, on what can be read in such backbones. In this regard, I would say that it can be quite annoying to read some users stating something like this: that species is a synonym, our taxonomic authority says so. And, for the aforementioned reasons, I would say it is not only annoyng but also scientifically little wise, especially if these backbones do not cite any reference or just those few references that support their treatment.
In the end, I would like to make an appeal to users and curators: please, if you can, avoid to restrict yourself to only read the treatment for a given taxon in a backbone.
If you have enough time, try to make a search in literature.
Try to take a look in national checklists. They are usually compiled by local taxonomic experts that can be often more reliable than electronic databases dealing with hundreds of thousands of species worldwide.
Before drawing conclusions on a given taxon, try to ask other users for a point of view. They could be experts or have available some key literature.
I do this when possible, but keep in mind that there are far more taxa needing changes than than can be done by the current curatorial team. Curators are already overwhelmed, so if this is something you are passionate about, I would encourage you to apply to be a curator!
We also have the taxon frameworks to avoid arguments over different taxonomic treatments, but we can add a deviation if the community prefers that.
Very good point. Few years ago I was this “backbone-pious” person you describe. Nowadays I compare multiple checklists, keys and papers from local flora experts. And let’s not forget the flag discussions with insightful comments by experts here on iNat (even if some still only argue with backbone sources and not clear morpholgical differences). As mentioned above, deviations are possible and this is what we do in most of the cases where taxonomy hasn’t been updated on POWO because the taxa are e.g. endemic plants with very few occurences. Sometimes, the taxonomical concept is very controversial (e.g. the Ophrys taxonomy in the Mediterranean or Capparis subspecies/variations in the Mediterranean and Middle East). And these discussions can get quite emotional and irrational. I stopped taking things personally. Taxonomy is - like nature - an evolving and dynamic process, not something unchangeable carved in marble.
Where is the double 
button?
And if not, please, refrain from making any changes. Leave it to those who did the effort to gather information on the topic.
Can you explain please, what is a taxonomic backbone? I have never heard the term before.
I believe they are referring to taxon frameworks:
https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/taxon_frameworks
I would like to check whether I personally rely on taxonomic backbones but I don’t get what exactly is the problem. Could someone explain this to me and maybe give an example? As far as I know, on iNat we should follow iNat taxonomy when identifying, so I assume the post is about something else?
This is specifically for curators making changes to the iNat taxonomy. We should follow an established list of external sources, but sometimes they are out of date or wrong in some way and we “deviate” from them occasionally. For example, subgenera in the genus Arion are not considered “accepted” in our external source, but they are maintained here because they are useful for IDs as most species require dissection to ID definitively.
This sentiment of “Don’t cite sources unless you’ve dug into the primary literature” pops up everywhere that humans discuss complex topics. It’s also known as, “Stay in your lane”.
But the whole point of iNat is to remove ivory towers. Science is a dynamic, iterative process, which is enhanced by communication.
Scientific progress depends on people — including amateurs — questioning each other’s ideas, and building on what they learn.
Consider this pattern: Person A cites a trusted authority to justify something. This isn’t ignorance; it’s a rational starting point. Not everyone has the time or the expertise to dissect the primary literature, but referencing a source is a good-faith effort to ground their reasoning. Instead of gatekeeping, we should encourage discussion. If Person A’s citation of Authority B misses some key details, that’s an opportunity for dialogue.
iNat is thriving because we are building bridges between amateurs and experts. Even experts rely on databases; nobody is sequencing every specimen from scratch. Let’s keep the conversation open!
I feel strongly that users should flag taxa whose treatment on iNat doesn’t match the relevant taxonomic framework, regardless of whether the user is knowledgeable about the taxon (unless there has been discussion on a flag already). A flag is the starting point of a conversation about “what to do” with the taxon. Indeed, changes in plant taxonomy on the site require a flag and a discussion, and those discussions go a long way for understanding how a species is circumscribed on the site.
Maybe I am misinterpreting what specific behaviors you’re advocating against here. But, I would encourage you to assume users flagging taxa out of line with (e.g.) POWO are trying to start a conversation with more knowledgeable community members, not necessarily advocating for POWO orthodoxy.
Maybe implement a big red warning sign somewhere? Reminding curators and flaggers about the well-known flaws and shortcomings of various taxonomic frameworks. (This, in addition to existing feature requests e.g. cooldown delay, tagging experts and top identifiers, advertising taxon changes etc.)
So how would that work, what are these “well-known flaws” do you mean one species in POWO, or a genus or a family or a country or state or very recent literature and how would that work if e.g. Benin is a “well-known flaw” would all species from Benin then be given a “big red warning sign”
Yep, POWO. Please contact R. Govaerts there, if after details about the lack of supporting references (hence the circular citations) and not-yet-revised-needs-reworking families, they’re aware of the shortcomings and very open about it. They’re also keen on fixing things rapidly, when directly contacted and provided with corrections and literature.
You could check the Flags section of iNat too, there are several mentions of the issue, and related (gentle) criticism of iNat’s over-reliance on POWO.