Should curators have a critical point of view when changing iNat taxonomy?

i mean that would be true if there was some balance between lumping and splitting but my belief is there isn’t and splitters are on a destructive rampage. Sure, you probably disagree with that and maybe there’s no objective line between splitting and lumping that will ever exist. I hope at least i’m being heard here that to me it’s a really extreme species-level splitter push.

sadly my view is that only appears true to splitters who are ‘getting their way’ and not to anyone else. I really can’t see why the subspecies thing isn’t a good compromise. It just feels like one group steamrolling another, and not like any form of negotiation or well considered solution. No, i don’t mean splitters are malicious but who isn’t gleeful when they get their way that way? I guess it will come around to more balance at some point but i personally think a lot of damage will be done in the mean time. But what else is new? i guess it’s a smaller issue than ecosystem collapse, climate change, etc, and just something else to try to live with. It really has reduced my use of this site a lot and will probably continue to do so to a greater extent, but i suppose to some people that isn’t a bad thing either.

Yes, of course, but the thing is no one has time to go that that level of specialization for every species that might possibly occur in a monitoring area. If it’s even possible to learn them all.

Yeah, i mean this is a common complaint but it’s getting really hard to preserve biodiversity at all and people latch on to these sorts of things as reasons to tear apart the protections even more. if i were dicator for life i’d preserve all these micropopulations, species level or not. But In the end my observations are the splitter stuff is just disconnecting people from conservation in general. Over time there are less and less protections for anything at all. Using cryptic species as a mechanism for conservation isn’t something i think is sustainable or successful in the long run. But i hope i’m wrong and i am glad it worked that time.

we aren’t. That used to be the policy but now it’s a free for all.

perhaps because splitters attack every effort to create one? but maybe that’s too cynical.

yeah… that’s really hard too and i don’t have a great answer other than i see a lot of problems with what is happening now.

I don’t know. it’s probably something else i need to walk away from because it’s a lost cause and for now what i see is the lumpers, and in the long term the ecosystems, lose this round too.