[Coming off a recent discussion on the Discord server)
Chironomids are very difficult to identify. Many taxa require view of the genitalia to properly identify to species level. Recently, there’s been a bit of an edit war on the taxon photos for many chironomid species. Many people think that the taxon photos should be aesthetically nice, full-body photos of adults, which look nice and make it clear what the taxon generally looks like in the field, but aren’t very helpful for identification. Others feel that close-up shots of the genitalia are better taxon photos, as they show all of the identification features, but look messy and don’t even necessarily make it clear what the taxon is to someone who is unfamiliar with Diptera taxonomy.
Which is better? Should we keep default taxon photos as nice looking images showcasing an organism, or is this a place for hardcore helpful identification photos?
Note that we’re merely talking about the default taxon photo here, there seems to be broad agreement that both kinds belong on the taxon photo list at large.
You are the only person to really complain about this since changing them. They have been changed for months without issue. There is no edit war. Once they are changed they have pretty much stayed changed with only like 2 edits on one taxa out of like 20 changed in months.
There is no reason other than aesthetics for the first image of a taxon to be near identical to many other taxon. So many Chironomids are only identifiable and differentiated by genitalia. Who does it help if all the taxon images look the same? It doesn’t help me who IDs them, others trying to ID, or differentiate them. If all 400 chironomus species were observed on INat, nearly 200 would look identical. This would just cause confusion.
I carefully choose the taxon images to provide maximum usability for accurate identification and differentiating adults. I always include the adults, usually multiple as secondary images of the taxa that require genitalia.
Nobody could separate these. If they were the default taxon image they would be identical.
Its also not just in certain genera. There are green Chironomids that can look identical between between like 10 genera. Almost all green females can not be IDed below tribe because of how similar green Chironomids can look.
Who does it benefit if the taxon main images are identical? How would having 30-40 species between 7 genera in North America look identical? All this will do is create confusion especially if they get in the CV looking identical.
This also has ramifications for the CV. If you see a taxa using genitalia, you should infer that genitalia is needed to ID that species accurately. Hopefully more people have started photographing the genitalia just because of the taxon images that appear in the CV.
Changing these will have a real effect on me. I have IDed 100s of hours IDing 30k of these worldwide and spent 100s of hours trying to correct miss identifications. I greatly care about these taxa on iNaturalist and think this is really an argument for aesthetics versus actual usability?
Should the taxon photos for life be pretty, or actually be useful?
My educator brain translated this topic into the question: what is the main purpose of the taxon photos?
If they were being used to raise awareness, teach about, or otherwise broadly engage the public then yes–aesthetics would be key, as the prettiness of the images would be vital to how people responded to the organisms.
But I think that Zoology123 makes a good point that the taxon photos on iNat serve many other purposes. I have seen many people add IDs based on the primary taxon photos (the pictured flower is white not pink, the leaves are the wrong color, etc.) without realizing that the species actually pictured was a member of an incredibly variable species, the species they chose was incredibly out of range (and lacked other vital key features), etc.
Not sure if this is an adequate solution but I notice that in the CV suggestions pictured in the example provided by Zoology123, the genus-level suggestion shows the organism while specific species may not. I think this is a good compromise since species requiring such particular evidence are probably more likely to be getting higher-level suggestions as the default. Best of both worlds: the taxon image for the genus shows what the taxon generally looks like, while the specific species provide a visual suggestion as to the relevant features required to identify them.
This should probably be a discussion under a flag honestly. I agree with zoo that in this case it’s best to show the relevant identification structures first and foremost. Otherwise the taxa are not distinguishable.
This could be arraigned and might work quite well. Species having genitalia, higher taxa being adults whether the taxa grouping needs genitalia to ID or not. I carefully try to manage most Chironomid taxa since it is the only taxa i care about and ID on iNaturalist. I want to balance usability with aesthetics.
I find it helpful when the first taxon photo – i.e., the one that gets used as a thumbnail – is an image where the entire organism is visible and more-or-less stands out from the background.
This is because it can serve as quick visual confirmation that I have selected the right taxon (say, Stelis the bee, not Stelis the orchid) when typing in the name rather than accidentally selecting something completely different which happens to have a similar (scientific or common) name. A close-up photo of genitalia is more difficult to parse visually than a whole-body photo.
Actually I find it can be useful to have identical-looking taxon photos for similar-looking species. If the CV has suggested something I am not familiar with and I want to get a sense of whether it is distinct or there are dozens of relatives that look much the same to me, having similar taxon photos will tell me that I should be cautious and probably select a higher taxon. A close-up photo of genitalia might tell me that this feature is needed for ID, but it doesn’t help me get a sense of where the resemblances are in a general sense (say, if the CV suggestions include taxa in completely different families).
I appreciate that for many taxa, users seem to have agreed to choose the same type of image for the first taxon photo (e.g. all adults instead of a mixture of adults and larvae for lepidopterans, or all leaf mines/galls for insects that are usually observed in the form of the plant damage that they cause).
I don’t know what sort of photo would be most useful for discouraging users from glancing at taxon photos and concluding that their organism is this one rather than a similar looking one. I have found that with bees, users often seem to select an ID based on differences that are a result of the light or the perspective or how fluffy the individual is rather than actual morphologically relevant features. I am inclined to doubt that putting close-up details in the first photo would reduce the frequency of this.
I think the first taxon photo should be an image showing general habitus (not arty or aesthetically pleasing, but informative), but the second, third etc should be close-ups of diagnostic features.
I get that, I really do. That’s why there’s a balance. Probably only one tenth or less of the current Chironomid taxa on iNat uses genitalia as the taxon picture. This is partly because getting the quality to ID taxon like that is difficult and not common. This is not as big or common a thing as OP makes it out to be.
Of the top 40 species.
2 are plants with “leaf mines”
36 are Adults
2 are genitalia
The problem is that they are so difficult to ID, and so many are so similar. It’s not possible to get a sense of the diversity of them. Of over 7k species. Only 379 have been IDed, this is including species IDed by larvae and not adults. Many can not even be IDed within their habitat and require microscope. Some in the most speciose genus Chironomus require DNA. They are so similar only DNA seperates some species.
In Orthocladiinae, over 200 genera haven’t even been observed.
Even if you disagree with my reasoning, the number of taxa which actually has genitalia is exceedingly low. 6x more are no image which conveys no information. Here is the results for counting what the taxon image is for each species of Chironomidae since I was also curious.
Part of the reason only 10 species have genitalia as the first taxon image is because of the difficulty in photographing genitalia in the first place. I have also only changed taxa that I have been able to independently confirm, or are RG. But since so few people ID these, many only become RG when I can confirm them. Most of the Chironomidae diversity is as such not IDed. The CV also only knows 55 taxa of Chironomidae as of writing this. It is not possible to get a sense of even 1% of the diversity from the CV.
picture 1 - thumbnail needs to tell the rest of us - is a flying insect, of some sort
picture 2 - genitalia details for the taxon specialists
picture 3 - 2 again but overwritten with text for general identifiers and observers Needs genitalia to ID to species
iNat needs a better way to make that obvious.
I have a batch sitting at Family, where I look at those with multiple IDs, to see if we can move them. (The ones that had 4 IDs will stay at Family, not enough info)
I think the argument for close-ups here is overlooking one important role of the default taxon photo, maybe its most important role: to answer the question, “what kind of creature is this?”
I totally get how it could be annoying to do a search like “chironomidae in Florida” or “orthocladinae in Europe” and see several taxa with indistinguishable photos. But you have to admit that’s a pretty niche query. Most users are searching for “my observations this year” or “insects in Texas”, in which case seeing an unidentifiable piece of anatomy above an unrecognizable Latin name is pretty much useless.
You might say, “they can just click the species if they want to know what it is”, but that’s equally true in the reverse: if two species both have similar adults as the taxon photo, you’re just one click away from seeing the 2nd taxon photo showing genitalia. Which suggests that the actual clash here isn’t between aesthetics and usability, but rather between convenience for identifiers and convenience for everybody else. And despite the hard work that IDers do, I think that’s a tough sell.
The default thumbnail needs to make it clear for homonyms. Orchid-bee or bee orchid??
iNat gremlins like to keep us on our toes, and offer the wrong one first. Pay attention at the back!
Seems to me that the first image should always show the full organism, or at least make it very plain what the organism is.
If I took a photo and the CV suggestions were a bunch of random insect parts that I can’t distinguish from one end to the other, I’ll probably just mark it as “insect”, or select the first one. If I get a full body I can at least go “oh, well this looks nothing like that, even though it’s the first suggestion.”
The people who are IDing presumably already know what the organism looks like, so having the first image being highly specific diagnostic characteristics, that probably weren’t recorded in the first place, seems very useless. The taxon photo ought to be tailored to the observers.
IMO, this is a good thing. It immediately shows me that I cannot ID the organism to species without more knowledge and resources.
While I do like making observations of everything, I’m not interested enough in everything to spend a lot of time IDing it to genus or species on every single observation.
For some taxa (including Chironomidae as well as Nematocera in general), I’m content with leaving the ID at a broader level. Viewing the full organism is more helpful in that regard than just seeing a bunch of dipteran genitalia.
That’s great that you’re such a careful IDer, but the average observer is just going pick whatever CV suggests that looks close enough. I don’t really get the need to instantly ID things to species, it’s ok to leave it at a higher level.
People who are IDing these to species based solely on CV are probably not the people that need to be IDing to species. If the genus or higher shows the adult, and the species doesn’t, that could really reduce the number of people just picking a random species and instead steer them towards picking a higher level.
In my opinion, a taxon page photo should convey as many of the idable features of an organism as possible. For many chironomids, this is only the genitalia. So, it makes sense to have that as the taxon photo for those species.
I agree with the people saying the first pic should be a full organism picture, as I also agree that those pictures serve the biggest purpose for the observers, not the IDer (that will know those difficult features or hopefully will look at the 2+ taxon pictures as well anyways)
… and that will not change when some of the organisms show very cryptic features… the those observers will pick the next best fitting suggestion instead.
I agree that showing how many similar species there are already in the thumbnails will likely do more for making observers more cautious about IDing to species.
I ID spiders, many of which can also only be IDed to species via genital structures… I think it would not help anybody showing palpal pictures only in the thumbs and would always vote against that. However, there is of course no case against using a full body photo that includes important features. I do for instance like this one https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/349118-Argiope-sector
I am your basic, garden variety, untrained Observer. When I see something unknown to me, I use the CV to try to find some hint of an idea, based on my area.
100%! If something I see is unfamiliar, I would never upload at species based on CV suggestion but I suspect other Observers might.
Having the default taxon photos be whole body shots at species might encourage this. Maybe keep the whole body shots at genus?
That said, I want to address this:
I am someone who has learned to photograph flies’ jaunty bits, but I did not do it because of taxon images. I did it because two Fly Guys kindly shared that bit of knowledge with me in comments, in a wonderfully hilarious exchange years ago.
Confession, and I suspect @raymie will chuckle, because I am now going to show my lack of formal training: I thought the taxon photos you posted were mouth parts. My brain still is interpreting them as chewing bits.
I do not know if this is helpful, but since Identifiers are not the only ones who see taxon photos, I thought I would pipe in.
I think the first photo, the one that shows up on IDs, should be a general one of the organism, and the other ones can be close-ups. I do sometimes contradict myself, for example when the taxon photo is just a tree from far away and I change it to a photo of the leaves.
My thoughts on this and conversation in general (apologies for not quoting stuff, I’m not super well versed in forum use)
I would argue that a) few users are actually observing these species that require genitalia and b) few users are clicking on random unfamiliar chironomids that all look the same regardless.
People also seem to be drawing a boundary between ‘identifiers’ and ‘everybody else’ that I don’t think is as significant as they might assume - I don’t know a ton about chironomids (and certainly don’t id others’ observations of them) but I find these photos more useful than a full body shot.
To expand on that a bit, I think there are two advantages of the genitalia shots appearing before the identical full body shots in that 1) The genitalia shots immediately indicate which feature(s) are useful for identification and let me know i shout get clear shots of them in the future and 2) a lot of insects (chironomids included) aren’t in the CV, so unless you’re doing a full search of chironomids (which, as has already been pointed out, most aren’t going to do) you’re probably not going to see the full extent of the “identical-looking green/brown midge” problem and might therefore be more confident in selecting the full body image than you should be.
CV misidentifications are an ever-growing problem on inat (especially with invertebrates) and I do part of the reason for that is a lack of information beyond a name and habitus shot for most species on the site where that’s really not enough. If there was a community notes-type feature where identifying characteristics (or lack thereof) could be explained by users to make things easier for everyone perhaps this wouldn’t be quite as necessary, but for now I think the usability of the site’s data for this group should outweigh the slight convenience of not having to click on the taxon to see a full-body shot.
I’m a careful observer and fairly conservative in my identifications, but prior to the chironomids being ‘fixed’, essentially by three users (two of whom have responded in support of the closeup taxon images), I absolutely made ID errors because of the generic full body photos.
