To quote my response the last time this was posted:
And to add some more numbers, here are the % RG observations for all the animal phyla represented on iNat by more than a single observation:
Chordates Phylum Chordata 90.9%
Echinoderms Phylum Echinodermata 77.1%
Brachiopods Phylum Brachiopoda 66.7%
Mollusks Phylum Mollusca 61.8%
Arthropods Phylum Arthropoda 54.7%
Priapulid Worms Phylum Priapulida 54.3%
Cnidarians Phylum Cnidaria 54%
Horseshoe Worms Phylum Phoronida 50.6%
Cycliophorans Phylum Cycliophora 50%
Comb Jellies Phylum Ctenophora 48.1%
Ribbon Worms Phylum Nemertea 45.5%
Velvet Worms Phylum Onychophora 45.2%
Sponges Phylum Porifera 43.8%
Nematodes Phylum Nematoda 37.6%
Flatworms Phylum Platyhelminthes 37.1%
Bryozoans Phylum Bryozoa 36.7%
Xenoturbellids and Allies Phylum Xenacoelomorpha 27.3%
Thorny-headed Worms Phylum Acanthocephala 19.5%
Segmented Worms Phylum Annelida 17.6%
Entoprocts Phylum Entoprocta 10.7%
Rotifers Phylum Rotifera 9.9%
Hemichordates Phylum Hemichordata 9.2%
Arrow Worms Phylum Chaetognatha 6.2%
Gastrotrichs Phylum Gastrotricha 4.7%
Mud Dragons Phylum Kinorhyncha 3.4%
Tardigrades Phylum Tardigrada 2.9%
Horsehair Worms Phylum Nematomorpha 0.8%
Dicyemids Phylum Dicyemida 0%
Jaw Worms Phylum Gnathostomulida 0%
Placozoans Phylum Placozoa 0%
Arthropods are not at the top of the list, but they’re certainly nowhere near the bottom either. It’s merely a list of phyla in order from easiest to hardest to observe with a camera. Vertebrates are some of the biggest, most charismatic animals, so they’re unsurprisingly at the top of the list. Spots 2-4 are largely driven by seashells and sea stars, some big charismatic things that you can easily pick up and photograph when you find them, as they’re often found dead. And then there are Arthropods at 5th place, beating out all the rest of the Animal kingdom. The least-identified are, as expected, the tiniest things that are hardest to get images of, like rotifers, tardigrades, and gastrotrichs.
Even within the Arthropods, insects are doing pretty well:
Crustaceans Subphylum Crustacea 66.4%
Hexapods Subphylum Hexapoda 56%
Chelicerates Subphylum Chelicerata 43.4%
Myriapods Subphylum Myriapoda 30.4%
Again, crabs and lobsters are big and charismatic and often easy to photograph, so crustaceans are #1. And then insects come in second place, above chelicerates (arachnids) and myriapods, both of which are similar in size to the insects.
So my take-home conclusion from all these numbers is that insects fall exactly where you’d expect them to fall in terms of “% RG” based on their size, diversity, and difficulty of identification. Harder to ID than a vertebrate or a seashell, but easier to identify than the smaller and/or simpler forms of animals like sponges, jellies, and microorganisms. Observers outnumber identifiers across the board, whichever taxon you’re looking at. And the harder they are to identify, the fewer people will identify them. I don’t see insects as being particularly “underserved” on iNat, any more than one would expect for a phylum of numerous yet relatively small organisms.
These numbers are based on species richness, but try thinking about raw number of organisms for a second. According to a 1994 study, roughly 4 out of every 5 animals on earth is a Nematode. If you want to see an under-observed group of animals, that’s where the focus should be. Copepods are up there too, possibly outnumbering insects according to some estimates. Why is this post about insects rather than Nematodes or Copepods? Because insects are, relative to these other taxa, “just what is easy to see with your eyes”. Given that this is a platform where you see things and then photograph them, the result of things that are easier to see being seen more often is pretty much guaranteed.
I guess I’m just not sure what the plan of action is that this post is meant to encourage. Should we be avoiding posting large charismatic organisms and focusing on smaller ones? I don’t think iNat is here to tell people what they should and shouldn’t observe. And no matter how small you go, you’ll run into an enthusiast researching something smaller.
If you say “stop posting these birds and post more bugs!” you’ll soon hear “stop posting these huge bugs and focus in on the springtails!” “Why is everyone posting springtails and ignoring the Gastrotrichs?” “Why all the love for Gastrotrichs and still ZERO Lorciferan observations?!?” “Why all these big 20+ micron metazoans when we should be focusing on the much more numerous Prokaryotes??” The answer is the same all the way down- because the smaller you get, the harder it is to see identifying features and actually identify things. Not everyone can afford an SEM, a regular light microscope, or even a phone with a decent camera. But we still want everyone out there connecting with nature in whatever way they can.