12 posts were split to a new topic: Discussion about using secondary accounts for identifying (but not confirm your own IDs)
Can you update it yourself?
I guess thatâs true but it still has members from two different clades, and is therefore polyphyletic. Achatinella is also polyphyletic as is visible in the image. Also note that Perdicella helena slots into Partulina here. IIRC Perdicella fully slots into Partulina and should be considered part of it, because âPerdicellaâ is simply a name used for any Partulina with zebra stripes as the shell pattern.
Technically, you do have one clade, with other clades nested inside it. You could treat the whole Partulina-Achatinella group (including Perdicella) as a single complex. Given its variations that might or might not be useful, but it would be logical.
1 Like
On iNat, a complex is âa taxonomic rank between genus and speciesâ so the group of snails in question couldnât be a complex on iNat to use when IDing.
Good point.
Depends on what issues are affecting Pholcidae. While many taxa may have similar issues, the circumstances are important. Are there misidentification feedback loops? A lack of identifiers? Too many observations to deal with? Is it more systemic like there are species very difficult to identify that canât really be learned by the CV, so the CV is only reccomending a few easy to ID species, missing tons of diversity. Are there geomodel issues? Etc
*Also by mistake posted this in wrong forum. Hopefully deleted.
1 Like
Frankly, the dataset suffers from all of those issues, but with respect to the topic here, the BugGuide characters are so commonly misinterpreted by well-meaning observers (e.g. Pholcus manueli versus phalangioides in the US), requiring an inordinate amount of ID reversals while curating Pholcus datasets.
For pholcids theyâre exacerbated geographically (species separation concepts are highly locale-dependent) as well as by their commonly invasive/adventitious populations. In some places the geomodel is great, but alas I have sorted my fair share of pholcid range outliers and Opiliones out of RG Pholcus phalangioides⌠these issues are of course not unique to my taxa, I feel for OP here and everyone who thoughtfully curates observations here.
Depending on the issue related to the CV, you can take steps to correct it. Especially if you strategically target solving those issues with a decent understanding of the current CV.
As it stands now, the CV knows a little more than 23 taxa of Pholcidae. This means when the CV tries to identify a Pholcidae, it only knows of 23ish out of 1800+ species.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?expected_nearby=true&taxon_id=47823&verifiable=any
If interested I can try to give advice. Ive worked on Chironomidae for a year and a half going from like 7 known CV taxa to over 70. While issues are still around, this has significantly reduced how many misidentifications there used to be. There still are a decent number, but its improved quite a lot.
4 Likes
I appreciate that! Iâm trying to curate all Nearctic pholcids and I think once Iâve finished Iâll have a better idea of what CV challenges remain for my group. I think a few issues have been fixed already, though I donât know the ins and outs to target the CV errors, Iâll follow up with you via PM 
23 pholcids limited to the CV⌠wow, I did not know that. Thanks for that info. With that consideration, Iâd say the CV has been surprisingly successful in at least putting observations in the ârightâ places to be seen. Yet, there are two genera the CV erroneously cascades into all local observations (Holocnemus/Crossopriza).
4 Likes
That complex also includes Newcombia and therefore already exists as a taxon, since it is just all members of the subfamily Achatinellinae.
1 Like
Great!
1 Like
That is just the way iNaturalist works isnât it? Everyoneâs identifications are subject to change by others. A misidentification is not a matter of such shame that you need to delete all trace.
Yes, that too is normal and inevitable. You wouldnât expect all the identifiers on iNaturalist to be the taxonomists who originally described the species they are identifying.
3 Likes
Alright, thanks.
Wait, is this conversation even related to the topic still?
Not saying this isnât something that should be discussed, it just seems off-topic now.
1 Like
AI summary agrees. Tangential discussion. A moderator could split that off.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.