As I’ve started to push into tinier and tinier bugs, I seem to be increasing my rarities more and more and also, consequentially, my ‘needs identification’ pile.
In an effort to move things along, I’ve been reaching out to Bugguide.net for help and it’s really improved the uptake on the tougher cases.
But I’m starting to run into the problem of conflicting IDs between iNat and BugGuide identifiers.
As the observer, what’s the best way to handle this? On iNat, should I quote/link/other to the other system? What’s the best way to stick-handle all this? Any advice?
If you’re going to try to mediate conflicting opinions, you need more information. I’d start by politely asking the iNat identifier why they chose their ID as opposed to [give the other choice]. You could then ask the Bugguide identifier the same question. As an identifier, I don’t always give my reasons up front, but if someone is engaged enough to ask, I’m happy to give my reasoning.
For taxa that aren’t readily IDed on iNat, I often seek more specialized avenues for ID. In such cases, I always quote and attribute what the non-iNat identifier describes as the diagnostic characteristics. I also do my own research and see if I can verify any of those characteristics. I think this is important because there are some identifiers that make IDs across multiple platforms, so there is potential for a situation where an identifier is essentially confirming their own ID.
In the event of a subsequent disagreement on iNat, I would ask the iNat identifier to provide a description of what they see as the diagnostic characteristics. If I cannot verify either way, I’d withdraw to the highest common taxon.
I think that there are potential conflicts between IDers to be sure. But just a reminder that any IDs users make on iNat should be based on their own expertise/knowledge. Users shouldn’t uncritically post an ID based on what someone else said unless they can meaningfully verify/confirm it themselves (eg, an IDer gives their reasoning/sources for making an ID and the user can verify those traits, etc.). @swampster 's process to verify characters themselves is a good one, including backing the ID off if they cannot distinguish between ID reasoning on their own expertise.
I agree, ask both IDers for characteristics, and definitely don’t copy an ID from another platform onto iNat if you don’t know how it was arrived at. I see this frequently with the smaller moths in North America- observers will add an ID with the comment “verified by BAMONA” or “verified by BugGuide”. This has always bothered me, especially when the IDs are wrong, as those sources may “support” or “suggest” an ID, but the IDs someone gives on those platforms are not so unquestionable as to qualify as “verification”. Nor should anyone be using “so-and-so told me” as reasoning for adding an ID on iNat.
I’ve seen this many times. I’m about to “agree” with an ID, then I notice that it says “credit to Paul Dennehy on BugGuide/Facebook for the ID”, and I realize that the ID they suggested was just the ID I gave them a few months earlier for the same photo on another platform. It doesn’t seem right to add an agreeing ID when the first ID was essentially mine to begin with, and they don’t seem to have investigated it enough to even list the relevant characters that led to it.
Sometimes I see a photo of a distinctive-looking bird. I look it up in the field guides I have here, watching out for similar species as best I can given that the guide’s potential to be incomplete. Then I post the identification.
Sometimes see a photo of a sedge or other plant that I would really like to ID, but can’t. I consult a person who has the ID skill I wish I had, providing the URL of the observation. If he makes an ID, he provides some reasons for it. In most cases I still couldn’t make the ID myself, but I can see why it’s reasonable. Then I post the identification. I credit the person involved and quote the reasons given. Kind of a third-party ID, but I think this is OK and I’m transparent about it.
I do try to recruit these people as identifiers on iNaturalist. One has signed up. I haven’t given up on the others.
Yikes. I have definitely done this… I do always link to the confirming ID on bugguide. I just get so excited to get an ID on a tricky insect. :-) I wouldn’t be able to find these systematically, but I can undo the IDs when I find them.
But would it be kosher to add the bugguide ID as a comment? “Was identified as a whatsit by whosit on bugguide” with a link? Would that count as useful information for a subsequent identifier, or would it invite hasty confirmations of the bugguide ID?
I usually write something like: “This ID was kindly provided by XY via Z” (Z might be e-mail/ messenger/ etc.). In the rare case that XY then confirms the ID on iNat with her/his own account, I obviously take my ID back …
This is what i think too. it can’t be wrong to give taxonomic experts, who are not/not yet on iNat a voice, by lending them my vote.
Obviously identifiers can be contacted via platforms but they are NOT the platform… so thanking the person is correct. Thanking the platform without mentioning the person is odd. It’s like thanking the hammer for the roof it built, and not paying credit to the carpenter.
Well and sometimes if nobody seems to know the species, I find myself digging for a few hours, through species lists for the area and species descriptions on BHL, archive.org and herbarium specimen on gbif … yes a few hours seems a little intense for a single ID… but sometimes it is exactly what you need to do, in order to add a new species to iNat…
As for
… obviously i have a single ID vote only. And once i made up my mind, using keys, descriptions and characters, i might retract the former “This ID was kindly provided by XY” ID and post my own.
As others have said, 1. Definitely ask each identifier, honestly a little more important to ask the iNat identifier, which features were used for ID and how lookalikes were ruled out. INat has a greater breadth of volunteerism, but therefore a lower average identifier quality and qualification. However, The volume of images seen on BugGuide also means that the identifiers there, especially those outside their specialized element, can get things wrong. There is always room for debate when there is only one person per ID (BugGuide and iNat), but get the facts of how the ID was attained. Sometimes it isn’t possible, and it’ll stay that way until somebody super specialized and dedicated comes along.
Referring it to an off-platform expert in this transparent way makes sense. We benefit from you having that avenue, and who knows, they may get hooked in eventually.