Bolinopsis. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Bolinopsis infundibulum 492705
Taxonomic Split 115446
(Committed on 15-10-2022)
|
|
split into |
|
Comments
Thank you @loarie for reviewing this draft split.
I have reviewed and will implement it.
Heads up @bobmcd @cemills @clauden @wyattp11 @mkkennedy
@loarie made some comments on my flag, which I have included below for the consideration of the community:
"Looks pretty good - if you click "Analyze IDs" on https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/115446 you'll see this output:
Total IDs of input taxon: 360
Number of IDs Destination Atlas
72 Bolinopsis infundibulum Atlased
276 Bolinopsis microptera Atlased
12 Bolinopsis Outside of all atlases
0 Bolinopsis Overlapping atlases
The atlases are responsible for those destinations. If that looks good (you can click through to see the obs involved) then commit. Its probably hard to 100% avoid 'outside of all atlases' because of the open ocean thing you mentioned, but you can manually ID them using that link:"
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?id=129418297%2C127679253%2C122792535%2C122664190%2C117874357%2C11554514
@clauden I'm not sure if you are familiar with the following feature request on the iNat Forum https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/implement-standard-marine-places-for-the-worlds-oceans/1458/8
@chlorophilia thanks for your efforts
Thanks @chlorophilia and all for this activity. Along with the feature request, there could be several marine taxa that could be updated (and split) based on marine areas. Currently, we are simply manually updating them as they appear individually--are often for observations that are based on outdated guidebooks so submitters are not aware there could be something else. I am following this carefully. And also hope to discuss these types of biodiversity matters with iNat and others at TDWG as of Sunday/Monday: https://www.tdwg.org/conferences/2022/
I'm not clear on why you include the Hakai and Port Hardy observations as B. microptera. They may well be, but cannot be identified from most photographs and unless they have been studied genetically, probably can't be certainly ID'd as B. microptera.
I don't understand why https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/122792535was changed out from Bolinopsis infundibulum, to just Bolinopsis, unless it was done by the observer.
The photo isn't great, but biogeographically, it is very likely to be Bolinopsis infundibulum.
I don't like the way that this split makes it seem like the person who made each iNaturalist entry changed their ID, which they did not.
It ends up with no authority for why each entry was changed.
@cemills —the taxon split system is imperfect. Near as I can tell, you can only select regions fairly broadly when delineating the atlases. Some manual identifications will be necessary to improve the geographic accuracy of the split. Hopefully it means a little less work in the end.
The matter of how iNat attributes the split to identifiers is another issue—something to raise on a community forum if you'd like to propose a change!
This was my first atlas-based split. I hope to learn from the process to improve my curatorial abilities in the future. If anyone is aware of what I might have done differently, please let me know.
@chlorophilia, apart from the challenge as B. i. has some overlaps and uncertainty, you touch on an aspect that is not-yet well-defined or used in iNaturalist: coastal vs offshore marine areas. There is a gazetteer (https://www.marineregions.org/) and there are some specialty group categories with names--mostly overlapping, but have their uses (IHO, MEOW, LME, NAFO, ICES, etc). @mkkennedy has long called called for more work on marine areas for the iNat atlas. It would help us to manage and update many taxonomic records on iNat, rather just the observations near coastlines. But atlas definitions are 'a lot of work' or burden, I understand. Am looking forward to seeing how this suggested split is resolved. Note: having marine map groupings are not essential, but are a very powerful way of navigating and reviewing iNat records--and is turning it into the online source of vetted biodiversity records. Claude.