Possibly just a strange design choice, but I would argue that for an observation that has both an ID of a grafted taxon and one of an ungrafted taxon, the Observation Taxon should be the grafted taxon, even if it’s coarser than the ungrafted taxon. So in this case, I think the Observation Taxon should be the grafted family Reduviidae instead of the ungrafted genus Neotropiconyttus.
I think it goes with the finer ID assuming it will be good to go as soon as it is grafted.
Incidentially, I searched for Neotropiconyttus so I could flag the genus as ungrafted.
One link I found indicates the naming authority as “PlutoF Taxonomy”. I don’t know if that is recognized by iNat (and I didn’t see Neotropiconyttus in EOL, GBIF, or BugGuide).
If it becomes an inactive taxon, will it go back to Reduviidae anyway?
If things can remain ungrafted for months, it seems like a better idea to use the grafted taxon as the Observation Taxon and re-index if/when grafting occurs.
It came in to iNat via the external name providers. It’s an unresolved name from EOL:
It belongs under tribe Harpactorini, I left it ungrafted on purpose in case that’s relevant to the “bug”.
Aaaaannnnnnd…I just found it on GBIF too: https://www.gbif.org/species/4772031
Apparently, my search skills were weak this morning.