That assumes that it was “the Computer Vision’s suggestion.” When it comes to mushrooms especially, it seems like half the species in the field guide suddenly “only occur in Europe.” So we have a situation where the initial ID was based on morphology and field marks in a published source, and the disagreement is “by range.” Those of us who find that problematic seem to be in a shrinking minority.
Related topics
| Topic | Replies | Views | Activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What should represent a 'range' for a species in iNaturalist | 65 | 8771 | September 24, 2021 | |
| On observations with unusually low location accuracy | 90 | 1595 | June 8, 2025 | |
| Huge "Accuracy" Circles | 44 | 1014 | March 25, 2026 | |
| Location and date accuracy of iNaturalist observations | 46 | 1997 | June 5, 2024 | |
| Etiquette for ID of species with no visual differences | 159 | 8526 | March 23, 2020 |