Interested in whether or not people see a problem with increasingly granular species being described via the use of New technology. Everyone is in favor of continued exploration, discovery and progress… but do the discoveries enabled by new technologies warrant a new rank below species? And should…

[image] pmeisenheimer: And what meaning would that be? That it is the only taxonomic rank widely used outside the scientific community? As in, laypersons who don’t know about taxonomic rankings will still refer to “species” (in whatever sense the word means to them) and use terms like “endang…

[image] jasonhernandez74: This is one good argument for a shift toward more of a focus on conserving diverse ecosystems in themselves rather than by proxy through “umbrella species.” Also, toward a paradigm that there is no point on the earth’s surface about which we dare say “nature doesn’t mat…

I feel like it’s worth pointing out that these critiques aren’t new… From this article I found on the “ lumpers and splitters ” Wiki page: We shall perhaps be severely censured for cutting down species. We have all along considered it as trifling with nature to separate species on slight or variable…

it would be nice if iNat at least allowed users to opt out of taxonomic change. At the current time you can choose not to auto-accept changes, but people still come in and try to force the observation into the new taxon. So i reject community ID but then it never can be research grade or else it get…

[image] jasonhernandez74: That it is the only taxonomic rank widely used outside the scientific community? As in, laypersons who don’t know about taxonomic rankings will still refer to “species” (in whatever sense the word means to them) and use terms like “endangered species,” even if they don’…

No, you don’t completely understand what I’m trying to describe. I’m only interested in observing and IDing to genus for Taraxacum. This is fine, but there are 80,000 outstanding obs of Taraxacum. Part of it is the officinale snafu, but even if there were a bunch of species… most wouldn’t be able…

Sorry, I hadn’t read it, but yes. Seems similar. The thing I like about the “gold” grading is it tells the user they need to be more savvy. The problem is that my depth of knowledge isn’t sufficient enough about any taxa to not frighten the expert on that taxa. Even so, consider the chickadee ex…

I think what you are describing sounds like some version of a feature request that @aspidoscelis has suggested several times including here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/improving-inaturalists-nomenclature-taxonomy/36143 I thought there was also a regular feature request somewhere but I’m not f…

Gentle warning, the migratory bird act in the USA makes it illegal to possess native bird feathers without a permit. I realize this is just an example you’re using, but I wouldn’t want anyone to run afoul of the law by doing this. https://www.fws.gov/lab/featheratlas/feathers-and-the-law.php

Sorry. Had no idea. Better to change it to droppings?

Should New Disruptive Technologies be Used for Classification in Ancient Linnaean Rankings

Nature Talk

upupa-epops April 10, 2024, 4:07pm 111

Do you mean similar to what I suggested here for species complexes, but chosen manually at different levels (complex, genus, family…) for different taxa?

Topic		Replies	Views
"Trying to define the undefinable": is iNat too focused on species? General article	84	3242	August 31, 2023
Taxonomy, Cladistics, and iNaturalist Nature Talk	105	2420	December 1, 2024
Who establishes a new subspecies? Nature Talk taxonomy	61	4754	May 7, 2019
My Dandelion Manifesto General	184	6557	April 10, 2024
Should curators have a critical point of view when changing iNat taxonomy? Curators	144	6200	February 7, 2024

Should New Disruptive Technologies be Used for Classification in Ancient Linnaean Rankings

Related topics