Identifications
Is it a waste of time posting Identifications to species/subspecies level ???
I have got to the realization that it is, unless there is a pic correct or not on the web, or some thing between an embrio and a Expert agrees . Well, an agreement for no other reason besides getting browny points, means Zilch and is non-relevant... A seriously bad place to be. have reverted to giving genera ID,s but sure if I just agreed that it as a beetle, would get agreements (been told things are plants, insects ect --- OH great what a revelation - maybe I should learn that things with leaves are not insects and things with six legs are not plants - those imparting this fantastic information have + 3000 identifications behind their name, so they should know, amazed that this extreme knowledge, can not get past cerambycidae, come on the sub families are easy, tribes are basic... genera slightly more difficult, and exponential move to species (unless you are in the America continent - just look at pretty pictures - cinder-garden style - why even think of learning what the characteristics if a Tribe is ---------- just look at pictures (oh again we need pictures not knowledge... great) Is this what we call a Citizen Scientist (a pretty picture searcher?????????) Great science is going to move forward in leaps an bounds .......... just not sure of the direction, might need to rewrite some of the 1700 (year) books.
But their is a bright future, as-long as people that do not have a clue want to show how many ID's they have made (sic) --- damn we might even find an insect with flowers -- what a find for nature, --- should be a sensational article, even if written by an embryo.
Comentarios
I wonder how this is going to pan out in the proposed reputation system? Will the reputation system differentiate between IDs at the Division level (and right 90% of the time) and IDs at the subspecies level (and right 66% of the time).
But dont dispair. Anyone can identify to goggo. There are quite a few people capable of identifying to tribe. But people capable of identifying to species level are scarcer than hen's teeth (I cannot think of an appropriate Longhorn analogy), so please dont despair. You - and your pictures , but especially your IDs, are appreciated by many of us.
People IDing to "plants" or "insects" are usually just trying to get an observation out of the junk pile of "unknowns," and may not be familiar at all with the flora or fauna of that part of the world.
But putting them from one junk pile to another junk pile does not really achieve anything, other than make the statistics that there is nothing in the unknown junk pile!
Where are the people in the next level taking it from "Plant" to at least family level which is the highest level that any expert or taxonomist will venture ....
Numerous people have told me it's helpful for them to be able to exclude the "unknowns" from their Identify filtered search. I'm not saying it's ideal, but it is helpful. Ideally every identifier could identify to the lowest taxonomic level...
Personally, If I ad an observation without an ID, there is one of two reasons;
1) I am not sure which tribe /genera it falls in, and thus looking for helpful information or
2) I am deciphering/ translating species descriptions - thus planning on ID to species level.
In either case I do not consider being told it is an Insect as helpful information, on the other-hand if one gives a Identification to tribe/genus level or as many of the South African users would do (place a suggest ID in the comments box) it would invoke a discussion on the species at hand. or at least, get an agreement comment.
The crux of the matter is I believe we are all on this platform to learn from each other. This was the reason I used to place keys to genera/species level and most probably will begin posting keys here soon. and will hope that such keys will generate comments to make such information useful.
One does not learn a thing by randomly searching through pictures on the nett in the hope of finding something similar - that is not identification, it is picture comparisons. One needs to know why the pictures are similar (which is based in the characteristics of the species at hand)
In my experience, when someone puts it as “plants” or “beetles,” it bumps up on someone else’s radar, especially when they are looking at regional taxa. For instance, I follow Plants in Texas (about 5k species or so). If someone posts an unknown, I don’t see it on my dashboard, but if someone ID’s it as the super broad “plants” or “Asteraceae,” then I do see it and can provide some guidance.
Perfect, perhaps not — but I do think it’s all in a process of refining the ID.
In the herbarium where I worked for a few years, a specimen could wait for many decades before someone annotates it. Perhaps in this digital collection, we may have to retain a touch of patience. An argument is obviously made that more experts visit the herbarium than iNaturalist, but future (and current) generations of experts will recognize the value of this resource as well, I hope.
Yes, but our experts are not going to be looking at the "junk pile" of plants. Few experts are going to be looking more than 1 taxonomic level above their speciality (e.g. an expert on Protea will not look higher than Proteaceae, and an expert on Trichostetha will not look higher than Tribe Cetoniini (OK perhaps subfamily Cetoniinae).)
What is really needed is a level of semi-skilled intermediates that place plant and animal to the level of Family (perhaps class for some of the more obscure groups).
I wonder if a gaming module might encourage that? A mix of the Artificial Intelligence IDs and users evaluating that? Starting with a short "training session" followed by unknowns with some random knowns thrown in to assess skills.
In my experience, it is far easier to confirm a wrong ID than make an identification.*** Most experts are happy with a low (less 10%) level of wrong IDs, and can reasonably ID most lookalikes in their field of interest (often to quite low taxonomic ranks).
I fully agree with you. We have to be realistic. Experts are few and far between, and it may take centuries for an expert in some obscure groups to visit the site (whether it is virtual or in cabinets).
But the digital age has generated an expectation of instantaneity. On iSpot when I was curating the taxonomy I was sent papers in preparation, in MS and preprints and the senders expected the updates to be made on the spot. The concept of a published paper as a hypothesis accepted by peers but still to be tested and explored over the next few decades seems to have been forgotten in our 20-minute-attention-span world.
***On iSpot quite a few users who desperately wanted an ID would deliberately make a wrong ID in a group in which an expert was active on the site. It works!
Añade un comentario