Thanks for pointing that out, you made two great points. I removed all bryophytes from my analysis and updated my post. I also removed the “X” in the hybrid names. I also noticed I forgot to filter out the “Considered But Rejected” taxa list from CNPS CRPR, and that cut the number of missing taxa down by a lot. The result is that there are now potentially 102 missing California native vascular plant species from iNaturalist. I might do an analysis next of how many from from Burge et al 2016, Calflora and Jepson are lumped into a single iNat taxon.
But in some ways it already is that. We see that by the constant complaints about “bad quality” observations – meaning observations that weren’t recorded as per academic standards of data collection. Yes, we see observers who need to be reminded that identifiers are unpaid volunteers; but on the other side, we see researchers who need to be reminded that observers are also unpaid “volunteers.”
So, regarding the citizen science aspect of iNaturalist’s mission, can we get a statement from staff as to what the intended applications are? Laboratory taxonomy and field ecology have different needs, and it is doubtful that one and the same platform can satisfy both. Or, barring a statement from staff, does someone care to look through the wikis about papers that use iNat data to see if there is a trend in the type of science being done? It seems to me that this should drive (or at least influence) decisions regarding what taxonomic framework to use.
1 Like
Right, which is why we need to stop it before it goes totally out of control and just becomes totally unusable for anyone outside the academic system (which will of course include most marginalized people as well as every other ‘professional amateur’ whom together form the backbone of the community. It’s framed as an issue of data ‘quality’ or ‘scientific accuracy’ but it’s none of that, it’s a dispute over how to deal with naming, classifying, observing, tracking, and communicating about the life on the planet. When taken to the ‘academic’ extreme it isn’t usable by the vast majority of humans at all. That’s fine for in-group academic research projects on very technical genetic studies and such, but it doesn’t make any sense for iNat any more than requiring anyone who drives a car to be able to constrruct a brake pad from scratch. It’s not that the taxonomic research and knowledge isn’t valuable, it certainly is. But it’s that it doesn’t belong here to the level of detail and to the very rapid extent of change that this small minority wants to push on this site.
I just dont’ think inat admin is even involved with this at all as they are overwhelmed with other things. Clearly some of them are irritated i keep bringing this issue up, but muting or banning me isn’t going to make the issue go away as it affects many others as well. There was recently a poll someone posted showing that even on this forum, which mostly only has the most intent ‘power users’, the most popular choice in how to use taxonomy was ‘matching my field guides’. We are long past that point now, and getting further every day.
And yea there’s absolutely a place for an inaturalist-like entity for taxonomists only, but it doesn’t work for iNat’s mission of ‘connecting people with nature’. According to Google (which may be wrong of course) there are maybe 10,000 active taxonomists in the world. Throw in other assorted scientists who work on taxonomy-heavy botany, ecology, etc and you get maybe 100,000 people who would want to have constantly changing scientific names and microspecies described as species with no way to opt out. Compare that with about 5.5 billion humans who are at least 15 years old, assume maybe 10% would like to use iNat, that gets us about 0.0018% of potential iNat users who are benefitting from strictly following taxonomic revisionism. Even if i’m off by several orders of magnitude that’s still pretty compelling, isn’t it?
1 Like
I’m not sure what there is for staff to clarify. The purpose of a taxonomic framework in the context of iNaturalist is to allow an observer (i.e. a citizen scientist), or someone assisting that observer with an identification, to communicate to consumers of iNaturalist data: this type of organism was observed at some specific point in space and time. The taxonomy is part of the interface between citizen scientists and the broader scientific community. Regardless of whether you maintain a bleeding-edge taxonomy or one that’s practically frozen in time (à la USDA Plants Database), we still have to deal with changes in taxonomy either way.
With taxonomy, like with any scientific/science-adjacent pursuit, what we believe to be true and the amount of consensus on that changes over time. New florae, checklists, and field guides are being published all the time, each using a snapshot of a particular person or institution’s take on taxonomy at a moment in time. Your trusty field guide published 15 years ago might call a thing Oldschool untilidieii, while the flora I just bought that was published last year might call the same thing Screwthat imacallitthis. You and I both need to be able start with photos of an organism and a name we found in our reference of choice and end with an observation of that organism identified as something that makes sense to us and to the consumers of our contributions.
Freezing taxonomy in time doesn’t solve the above problem, or in the net (as opposed to gross, accounting terms) solve anything. It only shifts the pain from one group of people (those using older information) to another group of people (those using newer information).
I don’t make a value judgement between old and new information here. Obviously (?) I think newer information is better, but I also understand that there are several potential barriers to accessing or incorporating that new information for many people. That being said, one of the great things about iNaturalist is that one can learn from the community. Those with access to the newer information can help disseminate it to those with the older information.
Regarding the notion of maintaining an architecture that is, at least to the end user, taxonomically agnostic, one that lets you ID your thing as Oldschool untilidieii and lets me ID my thing (which is the same thing) as Screwthat imacallitthis and then reconciles both things to Whatever itneedstobe per consumer of that data, that does sound very enticing. However, it’s not that simple.
Some changes might be simple like the one I described. But what about when there is a group of organisms you feel is composed of two different species but which I feel is composed of only one variable species? (e.g. an island endemic with not a lot of published literature that mainlanders think “oh, that’s just such-and-such”) Or vice versa (e.g. differing opinions on whether certain subspecies should be recognized or certain species should be split into two) – many of your “hypersplitting” scenarios likely fall under this umbrella, though I’d opine they are a small percentage of what the umbrella covers…
At the end of the day, whether we blindly follow POWO, or Leipzig, or World Plants, or WFO, or Charlie, or Darius (I’m Darius, by the way), or whoever else, or even whether we take on the significant effort of community-curating our own take on taxonomy, or attempt to have some blend between the two as we do now, there’s going to be pain points.
I don’t think its reasonable for someone who wants to contribute to biological and ecological science via iNat (i.e. someone who is expressing a willingness to contribute to science and conservation in whatever way they can despite not being a professional scientist or whatever) to expect that the scientific community should bend over backwards or travel backward in time to understand their contributions. After all, if a person is unsure of what something is considered in iNaturalist’s taxonomy, they can simply leave it unidentified and let the community go to work.
Or they can identify it as close as they can get to whatever they think it is based on their field guide and let the community refine/correct as appropriate. I’ve added a disagreeing ID of Persicaria to one, maybe two, hundred observations the observer ID’d as Polygonum. And that’s not a problem. It’s fine. Despite the big revision of Polygonum, splitting much of it into several other genera, being (for the most part) not super controversial (as far as I know) and having been published nearly a decade ago, there are still people using older florae / field guides. I’ve also found that it seems to take time for the taxonomic opinions contained in revisions published in English to gain adoption in countries/continents where English is not the dominant language. And I’m sure the reverse is even more true (i.e. taxonomic opinions published in not English filtering into the English-speaking worldview).
Or they can pencil in a new name in their field guide! I know there’s sometimes more complexity to it than that, but come on, there are a lot of options besides expecting the rest of the world’s worldview to freeze.
Narrowing back down to the topic at hand… Whatever our views on the pace of taxonomic change, it doesn’t change what our options are. They remain:
- Follow one of four global taxonomies rigidly, providing our feedback when we think they should change but deferring to them when they opt not to.
- Follow one of four global taxonomies in combination with discretion, providing our feedback when we think they should change but making our own measured decision when they opt not to.
- Use something else (field guides, florae, community opinion, etc.) as our center point in combination with some range of no to some discretion.
Given those three options and an opportunity to voice my preference, I still pick the middle ground as I think it’s the best balance of work, achievableness, stability, expediency, and practicality.
12 Likes
yeah that’s true. but the problem is one small group is expecting everyone else to bend over backwards or travel to another dimension in terms of how to use linnaean taxonomy. So if you’re talking about what works for the most people, it’s probably not going to be as intense a level of revisionism as what iNat currently maintains.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.