I have trouble quantifying probability or certainty, but my ID rationales tend to fall into several fairly distinct categories:
I keyed it out and/or can explain what characteristics I used to distinguish this individual from similar taxa in the region.
I think it is this, based on my knowledge of the species in this region and the general appearance, but one or more relevant field marks are not clearly visible; there may be other possibilities that I cannot rule out with certainty.
I am using using the CV suggestions combined with my general knowledge to judiciously suggest an ID that seems plausible; however, I am not very familiar with the region and/or taxon in question and I do not know if there are other options I have overlooked.
I havenāt a clue. I am using the CV suggestion and I have only cursorily checked it to see if it makes sense, or this is a taxon I have very little knowledge about but I am suggesting it because I have no better ideas in the hopes that someone with the relevant expertise will see it.
Note that these are claims about how I arrived at the ID, not about its correctness; even in the first case, there is no guarantee that I have not made an error in interpreting the key or the evidence provided.
Sometimes it would be nice to be able to simultaneously offer two different IDs, corresponding with the first and second sets of criteria ā i.e., Xylocopa females in most parts of Germany will be Xylocopa violacea based on 2 (it is the only documented species so far for most regions; the probability that the individual is anything else is very low); however, based on 1 they need to be left at Xylocopa, because X. valga is expanding its range and if we assume that all individuals are X. violacea we will overlook those cases where it is not.
1 is generally going to be what scientists want; 2 is probably what most observers want.
Why do so many on here think that this is different from the way a taxon specialist learns? Sure, a taxon specialist with formal schooling may have worked directly with more specimens, but the keying out of those specimens still uses the same resources you listed.
I donāt know how to express how helpful it is to me when people do that. If people arenāt sure, I wish they would always put the suggestion in as a comment.
I wish I could give my own ID on my observation a confidence rating instead of a choice between āthis is what it isā and āunknownā I know you can list by genus etc, but sometimes I am 99% sure but thereās room for doubt. Giving my ID less āweightā that way it will still be found by people who know the more specific ID and be confirmed or denied more readily.
I donāt think it would be any more complicated to use than the current situation. It may be complicated to implement, but thatās the job of a programming team. To figure out how to make improvements work.
I do - use the leaderboard (again up a bit if needed), then filter to location (sometimes broader because the list is zero) - then my knowledge of that identifierās competence (you will recognise someone who āracks up numbersā vs informed comments)
PS your Hand Slap is hard disagreement. Which iNat makes Ancestor Disagreement - even unto the fourth generation.
A working scientist generally receives more structured training, has access to specimens they can examine in person (particularly important for taxa where photo ID is difficult!), has someone who can check their work and provide them with direct feedback, etc.
Access to keys (not always cheap or easily available for those not connected with a research library, by the way) is not the same as being able to apply the information in the key. This is a skill that needs to be acquired. Most people find it easier and more efficient to acquire skills with the assistance of a more skilled person.
The work of learning is the same, but for the learner it really does make a difference whether this takes place in a context where one has access to formal instruction and guidance, or whether one has to figure it out on oneās own. There is some informal mentoring that takes place on iNat, but this is not the same thing.
Note that I am not making any judgments about the knowledge of the credentialled scientist vs. the layperson who has acquired taxon expertise. There are many experts on iNat who do not have any formal credentials: the skill is what matters to me when evaluating and valuing the IDs and information they provide, not their path to get there.
However, the amount of certainty or uncertainty felt by the IDer themselves when approaching difficult IDs may well be affected by their awareness of their position as a learner struggling along on their own. And this was really my point ā it was not about the validity of the ID, but factors that contribute to an IDerās willingness to put that ID on an observation.
(You keep claiming that people āhereā think that credentialled scientists have special knowledge and/or authority. Iām curious where you are seeing that ā my impressions have been quite the opposite, in fact: that participants in forum discussions are very much aware that iNatās experts come from all different backgrounds and many of them arenāt working scientists.)
Iāll have to point out that top identifiers are not necessarily amongst āthe bestā. (I am the top identifyer on a couple of taxons myself, so I think Iām qualified to make that statement. :-) )
Top of the leaderboard is a reward for activity. Quantity yes. But quality we have to judge for ourselves.
Do you know whereof you speak? Can you, will you, tell me why it is, is NOT, That species
Being on a leaderboard can be misleading sometimes. Iāve started getting tagged on stuff where Iām on the leaderboard for a whole family of plants when I really only know and ID one species, or stuff observed halfway around the world when I really only know and ID our local ones. No guarantee on any of my IDs that they are 100% correct. Iāve IDād things in the past where I was absolutely confident - until the taxon was split and now there are two or more species and I no longer ID past genus. There are probably half a dozen of these so far and I did not go back and try to find all my old species IDs on all of them. I just donāt have time for that.
I think the intended message is, itās necessary to ID these plants as Xylocopa because we canāt know if they are X. valga or X. violacea. The best we can do it Xylocopa.
I take it as an example of what I call the āpedanticā vs. āheuristicā approaches (items 1 and 2 in spiphanyās list) for lack of better terms. (No moral judgment implied nor intended)
The āpedanticā way: until the whole list of criteria that are diagnostic of X. violacea (according to the bestest sources) have been shownā¦ it canāt be called X. violacea, period. Provide the unquestionable evidence, or else stick to genus or family.
The āheuristicā way: if criteria that are strictly diagnostic of X. violacea can not all be seen in full in this here case, letās try informed guesses instead and see where it leadsā¦ range, abundance, ethology, prior observations etc. for all the lookalike species that are known to, or could plausibly, occur in the area.
I find myself alternating between the āpedanticā way and the āheuristicā way when identifying. Often I think, āLooks like it, lives there, OK thatās what Iāll name it.ā Sometimes I want some picky detail that distinguishes it from a similar species.
General comment: If I identify the observation as the common species in the area but itās really the rare one, thatās a missed opportunity. A loss for sure, but not something that will mess up understanding of ranges, etc. If I identify the observation as the rare species and Iām wrong, that causes more serious confusion. Therefore, I think the āheuristicā approach is OK despite itās somewhat (hopefully slightly) greater error rate.
Oh sure :) these ways have their shortcomings and merits, and thereās a place for both stringent principles and probabilistic views in natural sciences.
On both sides, danger lies in the excesses (to the point of self-caricature and contempt for the āother wayā) and in overconfidence (as if ID Keys were the gospel truth, as if Gestalt was the gift of prophecy).
Some taxa need more humility than others. I post an observation with ID, go back and change it once, sometimes twice. I just follow the same as if I post a disagreement to someone elseās observation: add comments about why I disagree with my previous ID.
Observation is what you say it is. Photos and sound are proof that you provide with it but those are not the only ones you can offer to identifiers.
Most people donāt have a state of the art photo or sound equipment; very few have photo capable microscope or access to DNA testing. Describing details that you see but canāt take a photo of really helps. In your case you could quote the museum collection reference number or the DNA test reference if it is publicly available.
This in fact, has been done. Another IDer, also an entomologist, provided a link to the specimen record in the database at our university as well as a link to its BOLD system record. I understand that my photos werenāt enough to warrant a species ID by themselves and Iām OK with that, now that I better understand how iNat identifications are made. Thank you for your helpful comments.
How do you know that they are blindly agreeing? Is it just because they are agreeing with a wrong ID? A few minutes ago, looking at my notifications, I came to one where someone had disagreed with me and posted a link to a journal entry explaining the reason. I looked at the journal entry, saw what they were pointing out, and on that basis changed my ID to agree with theirs; but that process I went through does not appear on the observation ā all you see is that I agreed with them the same day. It could easily be assumed that I āblindlyā agreed.
I suppose thatās an instance where one could add comments as to why they agreed with an ID, based on new information they had obtained and used. But itās not necessary of course.
Well, if the expert made a mistake ā i.e., is wrong ā agreeing with that ID does not really suggest that the user did their due diligence in understanding the ID before they agreed, does it?
I mean, I have certainly seen multiple experienced IDers get misled by a tricky photo, but this is an exception. More often it has happened that I questioned an ID that seemed wrong (and turned out to be wrong) and the observer said that they had agreed with the ID because x is an expert and knows their stuff so they trust them.
More generally: Iāve said this before, but Iāll repeat it: I donāt assume that all users who agree are doing so blindly. Some clearly do research the IDs.
However, sometimes (more often than not, in my experience), there are signs and patterns of behavior that strongly suggest blind agreement. To wit: if the original ID and/or accompanying comments were of the sort that indicated they had very little basic knowledge of the taxon in the first place; if they agree to each successive ID for the observation; if they agree rapidly (within mere minutes of my ID, or agree to IDs for multiple observations within a few seconds); if they do not ask questions or comment when making their new ID; if the knowledge required to make the ID is not something that most non-experts would be able to quickly and easily access; if I ask them and they indicate that they donāt know why it is that taxon, etc. Not conclusive, perhaps, but in many cases such things are enough to get a sense of how much knowledge went into the agreement.
Edit: If youāre concerned that people might erroneously think you are blindly agreeing with an ID, there is a very easy solution: include a note. Even something like āI see the difference now, thanks for the referenceā or āconfirmed using x field guide/y websiteā will tell other users something about your ID process.
Anyway, if one strongly suspects a serial āblind agreerā has pushed a tentative ID to RG hastily (therefore making the obs vanish from the view of experts)ā¦ it is feasible to voluntarily check the āCommunity Taxon can still be confirmed or improvedā - asking for further confirmation.
Extra gymnastics but a quick fix - without risking hurting the (too many) kind people who use āAgreeā as a āLikeā button.