Subspecies ID & DQA Best Practice

[ericakeklak]

There are some subspecies that through their range and/or morphology can be clearly identified down to their subspecies if they were observed in areas where subspecies do not overlap, e.g. observations taken of Danaus plexippus plexippus in the most northern parts of the lower 48 United States. In situations like these, is it okay to check “Yes” to “Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?” if almost everyone else is only identifying to the species? I often try to comment or mention users that are doing this to see if they are willing to refine their ID, but they usually do not respond. Would this be an appropriate use of DQA when the CID is already down to the species?

I have a list of every observation where I applied my judgment, so if this is not best practice I can easily uncheck all of them.

[jwidness]

In a poll of forum users, most people do not think you should use the DQA that way: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/poll-what-is-the-can-the-community-taxon-still-be-confirmed-or-improved-checkbox-for/7659

I think if the observation belongs to you, it’s fine to use the checkbox however you want, but I would recommend against blanket using it on observations from other people. If you feel strongly that it needs to be RG at subspecies, you can try to find another identifier who feels the same way and tag them in to those observations.