I am trying to surpass my observations (which are many, I am a pretty active observer) with ID’s and so far I mostly ID birds and great golden digger wasps vs. sphex dorsalis. Birds come fairly easy as my partner and I go birding frequently and there are so many resources. I learned about genus sphex from observing golden digger wasps near me, reading about them on Bug Guide, and watching others ID them and asking questions.
But I saw on the forum that moths especially in certain areas get almost no IDs so I want to try and find a way to contribute there.
I browsed through butterflies and moths in South Korea that need IDs and came across genus ambulyx. Using the compare feature, the species page, and the commonly misidentified page, I think I can sometimes narrow it down based on visual cues I’m observing and if I can’t, then I can at least confirm the genus. But I’m not basing this on any specialized knowledge, just considering the pic(s) in the observation and comparing them to the pics in the species page(s) and commonly misidentified pages. I feel like I’m already learning some patterns as I go along.
Is this enough information to go on to make an ID when insects/moths can be so widely varied and specific? I’m afraid of making mistakes or making it harder/more annoying for people who do have specialized knowledge here.
It’s great to hear you’re interested in IDing some of our underIDEd groups! Generally, it’s best to add IDs that you reached based on external materials. So if this is something you are passionate about, I would look for some online websites, guides, or scientific literature to help you add identifications.
Many moths are difficult to impossible to ID without dissection, or may have one or a few common, easily identified species and several nearly impossible to ID species, so be careful just using iNaturalist as a record of what is expected nearby.
I think it is fine to use iNats data as a first inspiration to find taxa you feel you can ID. However, for the mentioned reasons it would be good to verify your ideas externally. If there are species that are hard to narrow down due to similar looking taxa, this will not always be easy to appreciate looking at the species lists on iNat.
I would at least try to get verification by an experienced IDer. There is a top IDer for Ambulyx in Sputh Korea who also is the top IDer overall. I think I would try to contact them about this. They might be able and willing to give you some helpful input anf/or name some resources you could us.
I’d say, check what you think you know against books and other (non-iNaturalist) websites. Then if you feel confident, identify them. If not, but you’re confident at the genus level, ID to genus. Watch annotations and be willing to withdraw or change ID’s as needed. It’s the best we can do.
For most arthropod groups with high diversity, i.e. dozens of species per genus, it is usually best to just ID to genus unless you are an “expert”, in other words, unless you are actually familiar with all the species. Often people ID these into 1 or 2 common species without realizing the true breadth of the group, and then once those species are added to the CV model it becomes an endless feedback loop. So you can’t always trust the existing IDs on iNaturalist to build your knowledge of a new group.
One thing that I do if I have a good idea but am not confident in my suggestions, is to leave a comment with the suggestion and don’t make the ID. Give a good explanation why. The idea is that someone else that knows better may come along and concur or tell you why you are wrong. Also be careful with using iNat as an exclusive guide especially in regions you aren’t familiar with. There can be a probability bias (what I call it when you have a situation where the observation could either be a common species or a less common species and everyone just picks the common one, therefore making it appear even more common)
The biggest issue that I have with identifying moths is that as soon as you thing you know what something is, you will find another species that looks so amazingly similar that you have to question all the IDs you have made. I’ve been through this twice with moths of Latin America. Absolutely sure I knew what I was doing just to find a species sufficiently similar that I had to redo my previous IDs.
I do not have any answer for whether you should ID these moths. I personally try but frequently regret having tried.
We are in good company – with CV. (Is it lily Brachycerus or donkeyface Bronchus ? added in case the link is deleted) Comment from beetledude below
The computer vision of iNaturalist has been switching around these two genera ever since the first edition and throughout all updates. I am watching it not-learning and stand dumb-struck.
I think that is a valid point and I am ok with it on my own personal observations…just not so ok with it on other peoples’ observations. It is one of the reasons I am a reluctant identifier.
But as far as the OP’s question, I am only relating my experience. If you feel you want to identify moths, then give it a shot. Find references outside iNaturalist as the observations within a species are often incorrect and you will likely need further verification of an ID before making something research grade.
