Post by jshuey on Feb 2, 2022 14:36:49 GMT -8
... ,
I signed up on iNaturalist, but soon became disenchanted with it. Too many mis-IDs with a train of "confirmations" all supporting the mis-ID. Getting misidentifications corrected is a hassle and bad IDs persist. ... ,
Cheers!
Bob
I play south of the border mostly when it comes to iNaturalist. It is a powerful tool and perhaps a half dozen country records have come from those photos. And some really nice range expansions in the country as well. We have been working on a paper re/ the structure of butterfly communities in Belize - and here is what we said about this data source: Finally, online data were incorporated, but only after we evaluated records for authenticity and eliminated incorrectly identified or attributed records from these data (Symbiota 2021; iNaturalist 2021). iNaturalist data are especially prone to over identification based photographic records, and Shuey reviewed all records prior to May 2021 and removed problematic records before incorporating these data. Most of the records are common stuff - trashy species from resorts and people's back yards. But there are gems in there for sure. After I ran through every photograph, I'd guess we incorporated 2/3rds of the records. I am very conservative, and if there was a question in my mind, I dropped the record. Like Bob notes for Phyllophaga, people don't hesitate to drop names on species that have to be dissected. Calycopis is a great example, where North Americans don't hesitate to call photos "beon" (I don't even know what that name refers to) or isobeon, which as it turns out is present but really rare in Belize compared to the two species that look identical in photos, but which are abundant! Don't get me started on little brown skippers!
It is worth noting that Symbiota data, which come from museum records was just as bad!
John