Why Marked "as good as" Observations Progress into RG

General
1

Sometimes observations without a full consensus progress into rg.

Example:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/286221342

What is the reason behind this? I am wondering.

2

If I remember correctly, observations identified to below the family level (ex. subfamily, section, genus, species complex) can reach reserach grade if there’s a consensus at that level (like, “Yes. This is definitely a chicory of some sort.”) and they’re marked “as good as can be”. That’s like saying ID is complete, agreed on, and can go no further, so the observation can come out of the “needs ID” pool.
I think the idea is that something identified confidently to genus can still be useful for range mapping or locating examples of the organisms even if it isn’t indetifiable further. There are many moth species, for example, than can only be identified by dissection, so 99.9% of the iNaturalist observations would never get passed on for use by researchers if identification to species level was required for “research grade”, because almost none of the iNaturalist observations include photos of the dissected parts needed for species-level ID.

12 Likes
3

I think technically the Community Taxon is research grade at genus, even though it appears that the Observation Taxon is research grade at species (and even gets exported to GBIF as species-level RG). See this thread: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/in-the-way-the-data-is-handled-does-research-grade-apply-to-the-community-taxon-or-the-observation-taxon/56826

If you believe the observation can’t be confirmed at species (by anyone) with the evidence provided, you should ‘hard’ disagree, not ‘soft’ disagree.

5 Likes
4

If you wanted to make this a genus observation, you should have choose the genus and then “no, it certainly is not this species, but the genus is right”. Then it would display “Genus Cichorium” at the title and will not reach species level until 3 or more people mark it as this species.

As for “as good as”, I believe the intended usage is an expert coming and seeing an observation which cannot be ID’ed to a species level and making it RG on the level it is at the moment. I do this with swan observations all the time, as some angles don’t let you distinguish even between mute and whooper swans, not to mention tundra swan.

So you don’t make it casual, but quite the opposite, just on a higher taxon level, which is equally valuable for keeping species data correct.

2 Likes
5

On your example you can see your ID does not disagree with the sp.
Working as intended, but not quite as expected.

1 Like
6

But in my example, we dont surely know if its intybus or not. There is a lack of evidence. So my id cannot be a disagreeing id.

7

Okay - but then - you are only supporting the Genus ID - which ultimately has no effect on the CID here. A way for you to remind yourself, I did look at this one? You did comment - marking as Casual - but must have since changed your mind.

However the person who clicked - good as can be at Genus - presumably - deliberately intended that.

8

If you are confident that no one can ID this to species with the given evidence, you need to answer “No…” when the prompt asks “Is the evidence provided enough to confirm this is Cichorium intybus”—that’s what that disagreement option is for.

You can’t say “I don’t know whether this is Cichorium intybus, but I am sure this is Genus Cichorium” while simultaneously marking “No” on the “Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?” DQA. You either know it can’t be improved, or you don’t know, surely it can’t be both!

Edit: I do admit the wording can be pretty confusing, though!

2 Likes
10

Hmm, I just checked, DQA vote is by the poster of this topic, who also made a non-disagreeing genus ID.

11

Apologies - I thought I saw a different name there before.
I would have sworn it didn’t say salix …

The intended effect was achieved by the fourth identifier.
Who did disagree.

1 Like
12

So, the solution is I should disagree, if i want it to stay at the upper level right?
Thanks a lot!

2 Likes
13

Unless someone comes along and knows for sure that this observation cannot be identified to species I don’t see how it can be labelled “as good as it can be.”

14

The observation very probably cannot be identified to species from this photograph. There is at least one other blue-flowered member of the genus Cichorium in Turkey, C. pumilum (apparently = C. glandulosum). Therefore, the “No, it cannot be improved” at the genus level is appropriate.

5 Likes
15

I’ve had genus level hummingbird observations at genus-level RG because someone who good at IDing hummingbirds determined that my photo did not show any characteristics that could be used to ID to species (this seems much more common with female hummingbirds)

2 Likes
16

Similarly, there are some fungi (Flammulina and Sarcoscypha spp. are the ones I’ve been informed about) that can only be identified to species level by microscopy.

17

There is also the genus Achlys. There is contoversy over whether it comprises one species or two in North America; the original paper segregating them used ploidy level as well as morphology: diploid = Achlys triphylla, tetraploid = Achlys californica. There are many observations where someone has commented that it appears to be a “mixed” population – meaning that some leaves in the stand morphologically match one species, some leaves the other. But, were these allegedly “mixed” populations karyotyped to verify that both ploidy levels are present?

2 Likes
18

Achlys! What a frustration with what used to be a simple identification.

19

Reminds me of a similar situation with the American Giant Millipede Complex