Sometimes iNaturalist is not up-to-date with recent taxonomic changes. So putting what one considers the “right” name in as a placeholder is not unreasonable.
For example, I have a lot of Sedum photos showing results of our recent re-organization of Sedum section Gormania. Some photos I post with the new name in the comment, if the taxon is unambiguous. But what if the species boundaries were re-organized? Using placeholders is one way to go. I don’t like it precisely because placeholder names can disappear. Therefore, I personally am holding the photos back while I wait (and wait, and wait) for iNaturalist taxonomy to catch up. However, I’d much rather have the photos posted on iNaturalist where I could share them with other people. I’d like to be able to say, “You want to know what that new taxon looks like? Check it out on iNaturalist!” But I can’t, so far. Other people choose differently.
This isn’t necessarily a numerical goal, but I identified one little niche place I try to keep cleaned out: I identify the “unknowns” from new users in my home state. It is small enough a target that I can check every few days for a nice break (procrastination) from other things without getting overwhelmed. For a lot of things I can only give a general taxon level but rescuing a lepidoptera or aves from the obscurity of the unknown bin into the general taxons is pretty satisfying since those identifiers seem to jump on them right away. I’m starting to learn a few things I can give better IDs on since I’ve seen them myself and read about them. Since I am going through new users’ observations I try to explain why I am giving such an obvious ID as “flowering plant” or “bird”
That’s a great idea, I think I’ll try that as well! I’m also amazed at how quickly some things get identified as soon as they get into a smaller bin than “unknown” or “life!”
If I ID an observation that only has a placeholder, I try to copy-paste the placeholder as a comment (if it is different than my ID) – noting that it’s the observer’s suggested ID and not my own. That way the info isn’t lost.
Have you considered posting your photos when you want to, identifying your observations to an iNat taxonomy-consistent level, explaining in a comment what the newer name is, and then opting out of community ID? Just a thought–thinking then maybe you could put them in a project and use the news there or make a journal entry so others can be looking at them.
I agree with the suggestion to get them on iNat even if the taxonomy on the site is lagging behind what is now being accepted, and also annotating the record to indicate what the latest taxonomy should be. The records can always be aligned with the new taxonomy whenever that is incorporated on iNat.
Taxonomic change can be a slow process if there is not rapid and widespread acceptance and sometimes new arrangements don’t take hold at all.
