I spend a lot of time in State of Matter Life trying to help get observations out of State of Matter Life. Most of the time I can’t get to species. I know the identification etiquette wiki addresses the matter of coarser IDs, so in normal (not State of Matter Life) observations I try to avoid adding a coarser ID if a finer ID has been added. But I’m unclear how that applies in State of Matter Life cases. In this example https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/33304227 the observation was in State of Matter Life at the point I saw it, but there was a species ID. So my choice was to add a coarser ID to help get the observation into Kingdom Fungi or just skip it and leave it at State of Matter Life hoping that a second person who knows the species will find it. I’m just trying to get a feel for whether what I’m doing in these State of Matter Life cases bothers anyone.
adding a coarse ID (as you did) to bump it into the right kingdom is definitely the right call here. Fungi people who will be able to ID it further will likely never see the observation otherwise
I would do the same as you did since I would assume the chances of an expert finding it under Fungi are better than under “State of Matter Life,” which I always consider the abyss for observations. I’ll be interested in seeing what others say because that will inform my choices in the future also.
I ID to a coarser level in this case. In one case someone commented derisively about it. I replied back that I can remove my ID and the CID would then be back at State of Matter Life if that is what they are wanting, they didn’t respond further.
I participated in the last push to getting things out of "ID Jail"™ so have hundreds of such courser IDs, so one push back isn’t too bad I figure.
Personally, I’ll add the higher taxon and then edit my ID to include a comment that says something like “Not explicitly disagreeing with @[username]; I am just IDing to the best of my knowledge to move it to the correct ID”.
I’d provide examples, but I can’t search my comments right now.
That’s a good idea. Thanks.
Similarly, my disclaimer is “best I can do at my [current] level”.
I’d say, everybody keep doing what you’re doing to help free observations from their “jail” (lol).
Just as the observation “belongs” to the observer, the identification “belongs” to the identifier. You can feel free to identify as you see things!
As a courtesy, if an observer asks you not to put your ID (or comments, or DQAs or whatever) on their observations, I would respect that, but I would also be concerned as to why, and would probably bring it to the attention of staff, as it kind of suggests maybe I am doing something wrong with my comments/IDs which I am not aware of (staff might explain what it is) or perhaps observer doesn’t fully grasp what iNat is about (and again staff could help them understand far better than I could!)
For me, the most important thing to consider is how likely am I to be around and change my position should new information come to light on this? Even if I am wildly wrong, others have an opportunity to explain to me why, and if they successfully change my position, I will change my ID as well. A coarser ID that moves the CID toward a more refined ID will put the observation more likely to be seen by the expertise that can do that explaining, so it’s a win/win, even if you are wrong!
Thanks. I probably should explain more. Some people may not even realize it was in State of Matter Life before my ID.
that would be great! if only . . .