The full species and two subspecies do not have tgp in Florida.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/120976-Habroscelimorpha-dorsalis
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/509934-Habroscelimorpha-dorsalis-saulcyi
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/509935-Habroscelimorpha-dorsalis-media
Is this maybe due to their being right along the boundary of Florida or something and, if so, is there a way to fix it?
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.
If you look at the full species’ page and the two subspecies’ pages, taxon geoprivacy is open in Florida.
I believe the “obsured” status for both the United States and globally overrides the “open” status for Florida.
I checked a couple of my own observations of endangered species, and neither of them have their location hidden.
Examples:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/260367999
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/262135884
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
if you compare the ones that are open (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=21&subview=table&taxon_geoprivacy=open&taxon_id=120976), you’ll notice that these are at the species level, and the ones that are obscured are at subspecies.
it used to be that global taxon geoprivacy would take precedence (see https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/question-about-un-obscuring-taxon-geoprivacy/2838/12), but around 2021, that was changed to allow the taxon geoprivacy settings for particular places to override parent place settings (https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/when-there-are-conflicting-conservation-statuses-geoprivacy-obscuration-should-be-prioritised/60358/5), but maybe the change doesn’t work for subspecies taxa?
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.)
before:
after:
(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.
I said “might” because subspecies have never been able to override species level status:
But since the species is open in Florida, maybe it will work in this case?
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”.
That has not been true with spp in the past and I think this is a 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.
I made Florida geoprivacy open on the full species as well as the two subspecies before putting in this ticket if that’s what you mean.
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.
