On the taxon page, between its name and photo, it is listed as a vulnerable species. To my knowledge, all endangered species on iNaturalist have their location hidden
The source of the conservation status appears to be : https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.114562/Habroscelimorpha_dorsalis
It even appears to be imperiled in Florida.
Its more complex and less logical than @raphaelgrellety suggested. As @DT_Almquist showed, taxon geoprivacy is separate from conservation status. Curators can change these separately, and if you believe there is a mistake you can flag a taxon to be looked at.
However, it is also true that taxon status and geoprivacy influence the results in nearby states and states within a country. See this discussion that never really got to the bottom of the issue, but did reveal some of the complexity… https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/what-counts-as-threatened/60744/9
we can do a test. theoretically, if i add a subspecies-level ID to an observation currently at species level, then it should become obscured if the 2021 change mentioned above doesn’t work for subspecies. (note adding a disagreeing species-level ID to an observation at subspecies level will have no effect because i think the taxon geoprivacy works on the ID taxa rather than the observation taxon, just to be conservative.)
(so then if subplace taxon geoprivacy overrides don’t work for subspecies taxa, you’ll probably need a feature request or bug report to get it changed / fixed. or if you don’t want to wait on a system change, then you could probably remove the global and other parent place setups for the subpecies taxa.)
I think the problem might be solved by adding open geoprivacy on the subspecies at the state level.
Currently, each subspecies has a global obscure applied directly to the subspecies (plus the global obscure inherited from the species), and it seems that the subspecies global obscure takes precedence over the species state-level open geoprivacy. Which I think makes sense – if someone applies a geoprivacy at the subspecies level, I wouldn’t expect a higher taxon geoprivacy to override it.
Thank you as always. I’m 100% sure that these taxa do not need obscuring in Florida but would not feel comfortable removing that for places outside of my state. I’ll get in touch with some tiger beetle experts to see what they think and if they think tgp is warranted outside of FL, I’ll pursue a feature request or bug report. Ha, “bug”.
you may also want to try @jwidness’s suggestion to create a subspecific set of state overrides, in case that can get the job done without a system change.
if you look at jwidness’s screenshots, the setups in the subspecies are all inherited from the species except for a second global setup. so the suggestion is to create a state-level setup in the subspecies that’s not inherited.
@pisum@jwidness Thank you both very much. I’m not sure exactly what finally did it but replacing the Florida statuses for all three taxa seems to’ve finally worked!