We have generalist identifiers – the ones who do triage on the unknowns, sorting them into categories like “beetles” or “conifers.”
We have specialist identifiers – the ones who can go through “beetles” and put them in genera or species.
What we seem to have fewer of are – not sure what term to use – eclectics? Cross-sectionals? By that I mean: the person who can go through your beetles and take them to genus or species often can’t do anything for your salamanders, your bivalves, or your Rosaceae (unless they know a host-specific beetle herbivore of one of your Rosaceae).
This surprised me when I first noticed it. The thread on Neurodiversity and iNaturalist!, now at 409 posts and still open after three-and-a-half years, indicates a high incidence of folks on the autism spectrum. I would expect a fairly large proportion of those to have nature as their “special interest” – as I do – and therefore to amass as much information about it as possible. It always felt natural to me to learn to recognize many species in many taxonomic groups. I would have expected, therefore, to encounter plenty of iNatters who, in a given geographic locale, can identify (at least some) beetles to species, (at least some) salamanders to species, (at least some) bivalves to species, and so on across the whole tree of life.
Why are there seemingly few of these? Why is it that we seem divided into the basic-triage generalists and the hyperspecialists? This seems inefficient. It adds an extra step. Say we have:
- Two observations, both “Unknown” or at best “Insects.”
- Step 1: a generalist sorts them, one into “Beetles,” the other into “True Bugs.”
- Step 2: a beetle specialist finds the “Beetles” observation and identifies it as “Geotrupes”
On a separate occasion, a Heteroptera specialist finds the “True Bugs” observation and identifies it as “Menecles insertus.”
It takes three people, and they are still at “Needs ID.” Now, if we had eclectic identifiers:
- Two observations, both “Unknown” or at best “Insects.”
- Step 1: an eclectic sorts them, one into “Geotrupes,” the other into “Menecles insertus.”
Only one person to get to the same point that took three people in the other scenario! Is there a reason why it doesn’t go this way?