iNat. RG ID records are also added to GBIF, which also adds records from sources including museum specimens. GBIF is a great source, although parts of it’s taxonomy need updating. It lists some previous (now invalid) taxon names, which prevent the corresponding iNat taxa page maps (which use the current valid name) from displaying the GBIF data filter. GBIF also uses some previous (now invalid) taxonomic rank statuses, e.g. subspecies that were since elevated to species rank elsewhere in literature.
What if anything can be done to give feedback or correction to GBIF to work toward a more fully aligned taxonomy without name or rank mismatches?
Curation is a major effort investment on iNat. alone, which is unfeasible if needed to be done manually on multiple individual databases (GBIF and others, e.g. ITIS). Any solution toward greater standardization where corrections would only need to be made in one place would be very useful to all databases.
Name mismatch between iNat and GBIF: Lasioglossum zephyrus vs. zephyrum (as a result, the GBIF map filter isn’t available for the species on iNat’s taxa page map).
GBIF receives image of museum specimens and uses the names written on the physical specimen labels in the photos, but those are often now-invalid due to having been revised since in academic literature. This can affect the name and taxonomic rank (e.g. species vs. subspecies).