Just an observation, I mostly ID bird species around Europe and Africa on iNat, and I’ve noticed that there observers tend to use subspecies categories quite more frequently in Africa (particularly in South Africa) than observers in Europe, who tend to stop at species levels,
Most subspecies IDs seem to be mostly based on range distribution rather than phenology or genetics (obviously), which makes me wonder if using subspecies category should be so widespread in the first place. If I submit an observation of a bird in Spain, even if that species has a subspecies described to occupy the whole of the Iberean Peninsula, I’m usually not going down to the subspecies level since there is usually a non-zero chance that it belongs to a vagrant individual of a different region (provided that subspecies are not easily distinguishable),
Should this approach be more widely used or am I ultimately harming the quality of research grade observations?
For birds, I almost never assign subspecies for the reasons you mention. I might do so if the subspecies is very distinct. Here in the Southwest US during winter the Dark-eyed Juncos are represented by several different subspecies and at least some can be assigned to a single subspecies based on clear characteristics. But for the majority of bird species I ignore subspecies.
It depends.
Sometimes it is just slight variation in plumage and I could not be bothered.
Others are very distinct, it makes sense to ID them to ssp as these could be split.
Some, like the Crimson Rosella has gone down the speciation quite far with diverging feeding habits, different calls and colours so it is worth noting.
That’s a good point, I know Tawny-flanked Prinias also have quite different regional vocalizations, but it does seems that observers are more concerned with increasing their “taxa repertoire” rather than making pondered assessments on the validity of subsp identification (this is my own personal skepticism)
The one exception where I’ve paid attention to subspecies is when that form has a special conservation status. For me that’s been mostly with mammals, where a particular subspecies is listed as endangered. (I think subspecies in most mammals can be safely ignored, similar to birds.) Herpetologists might assign subspecies more often since you can usually get a better close-up photo and they are not as mobile so range limits are better defined.
Yes, the calls can sometimes tell where is the bird from, even it is only mimicry.
BTW I am not completely immune to a collector mindset, want to see them all.
Like James said, subspecies could be viewed cynically as a made-up way for herpetologists to make a name for themselves by “discovering” new species, but an ecological distinction (a subspecies, that is maybe eventually split into a new “species”) can have real conservation implications, triggering habitat protection that saves the animal. So it’s a lot more complicated than just taxonomy.
Right, I’m not suggesting that the concept of subspecies doesn’t make sense, I’m just questioning how this concept is being used by observers in iNaturalist, with it often being applied (based on my experience) solely based on geographical location of the observation,
I also don’t think that James suggested that herpetologists are purposefully inflating taxons, just that it’s easier to ID subspecies based on close-up photos of reptiles rather than lower-quality distant photos of birds
We have wild bees - not in battery farms. Those are the interesting ones that need protecting. And solitary bees. For our 2 South African ssp, it is the mountain range which separates them too. iNat’s distribution maps have some wobbles - I will leave the entomologists to sort that out.
