I noticed the iNaturalist app now groups bison into the bos genus with other cattle. The bison Wikipedia page and other sites still classify them in the genus bison.
Is iNaturalist ahead of the game and other sites have yet to update this change? Is this an official change or is it disputed? This isn’t the first time I have seen differences in taxonomy classification between iNaturalist and other places (like a sub species being classified as a species).
So I guess my question is what factors lead to a taxonomy change and why are some taxon classified differently on iNaturalist vs other places?
The ASM Mammal Diversity Database is the source for mammal taxonomy on iNat. Here’s the account for Bos bison: https://www.mammaldiversity.org/taxon/1006256/
Both Bos and Bison have a long history of use for the bison species but I believe genomic data supports including cattle and bison in the same genus.
That’s really neat! I remember previously thinking they were in the same genus as cattle before I really got into animal taxonomy myself. Thanks for the info! :)
Sometimes it’s the outside source that’s out of date. Less often, in my experience, it’s iNaturalist that’s out of date. If you find the paper that explains the change and point it out changes happen fast here.
Outside sources are more likely to be out of date since they could be from a long time ago. Sometimes changes in genus name can cause a lot of problems and photos of type specimens get lost. But, when I keep digging mostly I can find them.
Where iNaturalist can be weaker is in having complete lists of species in a given genus. Very rare species, or those that few people know how to identify might not have a single observation and sometimes there is a placeholder for that, other times not so much.
I find among taxonomists confusion is more common than real disputes or arguments, or maybe I’m just innocent and haven’t discovered that yet with the ants. There are so many species it can feel like drowning and everyone just wants to get it right if it’s at all possible.
Well, there are definitely taxonomic disagreements that are based on experts looking at the same set of data and interpreting those data differently. Since there is no universal rule on how to define a genus – or a species for that matter – taxonomists can differ in how they prefer to classify organisms. There’s a lot more bias based on personal preference in taxonomy than you might realize.
One area is DNA research. It can explain relationships and can be used by people to define species. For example, it was recently discovered that falcons are more closely related to parrots than other raptors. But, it is complicated. There are two schools: people who want to split off species due to minor differences and people who want major differences to separate species. Look up / search for the debate on the Compton Tortoiseshell (North America) and False Comma (Europe). People make decisions on how to classify things. But, nature will just carry on.
And we can’t forget that ‘species’ is a completely artificial construct with no precise definition
I think that applies to taxonomy in general, not just the concept of species. Taxonomic categories are human-made, but they are based on observable and measurable differences in the organisms themselves. We can distinguish a bird from a fish or a fish from a snake without much difficulty. An issue obviously occurs as you move into closely related groups, such as distinguishing a red-tailed hawk from a red-shouldered hawk.
Species are simply an attempt to organize that variation into useful categories. And biological variation, of course, does not always fit neatly into those categories. Populations can differ (especially in arthropods), hybridization can occur, and genetic differences may not fit neatly with visible differences. That is (usually) where disagreements over species boundaries come from. The categories are ours, but the biological differences and relationships are not.