Apologies if a similar conversation has been had, but a few searches pulled up nothing.
In the case of an observation photo being detailed enough to know it is one of two species (Species A or B), but the evidence for which of the two is only available via text in the description box, not in the photo, how should this be handled? Should we only ID to the level that is visible in the photos (Genus A), or trust the observer when they say the significant defining feature (visible in person but not in the photo) marks them as Species A?
It seems to me if the observer is well-acquainted enough with the taxa to describe the significant defining feature, they will have accurately reported their in-person observation. This seems comparable to ātrustingā descriptions that say āthe call was definitely Xā or āthe flight pattern/behaviour was definitely Yā
I know this type of question generally ends with the answer āID to the level you are comfortable withā but am wondering if there is more of a hardline stance on this or at least a sort of consensus
Thanks! Yeah itās a tricky one and can see it going either way.
I had read through those but donāt think the situation Iām thinking of is described. There undoubtedly is evidence of the bird to the extent you can tell genus, but the only evidence of species is in the description. Iām thinking if the observer was asked about a specific detail and replied āOh I think it was thisā I would lean on caution, but if, as in this case, the observer added in the initial description a very distinct detail that only someone knowledgeable on the taxa would know to include, Iām viewing that as a piece of evidence itself.
The observation for context- not to raise an issue with the other IDer, just had had several similar contested IDs along similar lines with the IDer, and wanted to see the communityās wider opinion if I should lean more that way in future
Personally, in that situation I trust the observer, since they seem to know what they are talking about. However each identifier will have to decide for themselves whether to do this or not.
I kind of wobble on this one depending on my mood (not very good as a guideline, unfortunately). Itās tricky.
On iNaturalist, we already have to take some non-photographic evidence from the observer as truthāfor example, location and date canāt be independently verified, but often help with identification (such as when separating crows). We can also take extra information in the form of fields (such as host plants, which may be identifiable from the photo but not necessarily, or information about the habitat).
Generally speaking, I bring together things like 1) how much I trust this particular observer to know what theyāre talking about 2) my gut instinct on the taxa (maybe itās an empid that can technically be discerned by photo, but itās difficult, and looking at the photo Iām leaning towards species x, and the notes about the call confirm that) 3) the level of āburden of proofā necessary for the ID (I wouldnāt be comfortable with agreeing to a fish crow ID in California even if the observer said they heard the characteristic call, but I might be swayed for that same observation in Florida) 4) how easy the non-photographed evidence is to accurately judge in the field (I take descriptions of size with a large heaping of salt because people very confidently misjudge the size of birds in the field ALL THE TIME) ā¦ etc.
I tend not to disagree on the basis of lack of evidence unless the evidence is actually contradictory, because if someone can upload a Casual photo/sound-less observation with a species ID to catalogue something they saw but couldnāt document, it doesnāt make sense to take that species ID away from them when they have some evidence. But whether or not I agree based on non-photographic/auditory evidence really comes down to my gut feeling after reviewing the above points. Usually I donāt Agree because often Iām not confident, but I do sometimes.
I am of course interested in reading othersā opinions on the topic.
I feel likewise. In the example provided by the original poster, I frown upon the person who bumped the bird back to genus by choosing explicit disagreement with the observer. Lack of evidence isnāt contrary evidence.