Why getting Palaearctic species suggestions for Nearctic observations?

I am working through the Donaciinae leaf beetles of North America, as they were my doctoral critters and I’ve done the taxonomic revisions of the genera. Many observations were ID’d as Palaearctic species and all are corrected to the extent possible. At least, all those so ID’d have been changed back to genus if I couldn’t put a correct species name on them.

As I’m filling in the ID field, Palaearctic taxon suggestions keep coming up, though some Nearctic taxa are now appearing as well.

Why are taxa not known to be in North America even appearing in suggestions at all? This can lead only to ID errors.

3 Likes

My guess would be that there were RG observations of Palearctic species in North America at the time the CV model was trained. The computer vision should improve as the incorrectly IDed species are corrected.

4 Likes

This thread may answer some questions https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/concern-about-cv-model-for-global-genera/45176

Ultimately, the iNat system doesn’t know the expected range of any taxon unless that information is input to an atlas or checklist. Even then, the computer vision algorithm has its own predictive geomodel https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/introducing-the-inaturalist-geomodel/45407

2 Likes

There’s a way to get the CV to suggest only (or primarily) things that are “seen nearby,” isn’t there? If so, how does one make the CV do that? Lately I’m getting a lot of suggestions that are FAR out of range, and I’d like to change that.

1 Like

Unfortunately, after a wildly out-of-range CV suggestion is seconded by someone who assumes that iNat CV ought to be right, it does create the potential for a “seen nearby” error that is often then propagated through the system by other users who are also lacking knowledge about species ranges. It’s a common thing, in my experience, that frequently creates pages and pages of erroneous IDs.

8 Likes

Exactly, although I once had a curator arguing vehemently that that was not the case.

In my experience, this has become worse with the update from “seen nearby” to “expected nearby” for some reason. The system has somehow adopted a broader definition of “nearby”.

And yes, there are big influences due to single observations - which looks like something that could be easily fixed.

3 Likes

When I see an obviously wrong seen nearby - I go to the distribution map - find that one (sigh which is sometimes multiple) and hammer them back. If we don’t correct the mistake, it gets worse and worse.
But now CV is updated about once a month, it can get tidied up reasonably quickly.

My copypasta - You have chosen a South African plant

8 Likes

On the one hand, it also works in the opposite direction. Yes, I too am sometimes a bit annoyed by the need to correct obviously incorrect identifications of European observations as belonging to Nearctic species. On the other hand, entries from the Palaearctic to the Nearctic and back again are so not uncommon that I created a project for such observations:https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/invisible-travelers-hitchhiking-animals. Whether we like it or not, the fauna and flora of the Holarctic are becoming increasingly similar ¯_(ツ)_/¯.

2 Likes

It would be helpful if you could provide links to some observations where you’ve seen this happen.

1 Like

For example:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/195669649
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/195669009
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/194728305 (Parthenicus is an American genus, absent in Europe)

1 Like

The problem with the last one is the CV refuses to suggest Phytocoris! 10,000 observations of the genus on iNat (~1,000 are RG) and it always shows me Parthenicus, even for a centered, cropped photo on a white or neutral background. For example: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/182479995 (CV = Parthenicus) and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/136766993 (CV = Miridae, 2nd option Parthenicus).

2 Likes

So it’s been 5 weeks since I posed this question. All Nearctic observations have been reviewed if ID as Palaearctic taxa, and have been correct to species if possible, or back to genus for later review. Most of the ID to species I’ve done were then agreed to by the observer, and the right Nearctic taxa are appearing in suggestions but still Palarctic taxa appear as well. But I’m following the subfamily and immediately correct any that come in wrong. So the CV training seems to have taken place at least once, in order for this to be happening. While it’s going the right direction, it’s looking like it’ll take many months, till I do IDs using my reference collection and keys, and work through the 1000s of “specimens”

5 Likes

Thank you for cleaning up this corner of the database! And for working to keep it clean. That really helps.