@loarie, @carlos2, @alexiz, @aztekium_tutor, @ug56bdi, @bouteloua, @jrebman, @stevejones, @sambiology, et al.:I was revising Opuntias and i found someone created the incomplete epithet Opuntia x , i don't think this is that bad, many species has been coming out as natural and known hybrids (Opuntia x andersonii, Turbinicarpus x mombergeri, Agave x madrensis)some of those with such density that are in way to description as a new hybrid population (a , b , c , d ), and other species mostly domestic (agricultural (Citrus x limon ), ornamental (Bougainvillea (read comment from @alexiz)) and cattle(mule)) all this present trouble to id the species as a particular one and end up as a not known specie from a genus waithing for confirmation from the public and in case of not described hybrids we end up in a vicious circle on which eventually comes someone to suggest a specie and specialists come over and over to explain the same (read @alexiz comment on Bougainvillea link), so i suggest to make, when its needed, the uncomplete epithet such as Bougainvillea x, Agave x, Opuntia x, Turbinicarpus x, etc.

(reminder: we lack the diferenciation between parental origin of hybrids, lets do not forget that a mule is different from a hinni,one is E. africanus x ferus and the other is E. ferus x africanus respectively)

Somewhat related, the curator guide specifies that we are to use a cross symbol "×" instead of a lowercase x for hybrid taxa, so the correct display for your suggestion should be Opuntia ×.

EDIT: (Cassi beat me to it!)

You should definitely be able to use custom observation fields to explore cladode and fruit shapes, other morphological characteristics. Sounds interesting! https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/new

Sorry, I'm not understanding what you want to do exactly. If you want to analyze cladode or fruit shapes, some data entry would of course be needed--you can add observation fields to other users' observations (unless they forbid it in their site settings). Lumping observations into a hybrid taxon could be a possible first step to narrowing down data, but wouldn't provide any information on cladode or fruit shapes.

You can also always download the iNat data and manipulate it on your end locally if what you need to do doesn't fit the site's taxonomy policies.

el asunto es que muchos de los que estamos identificando escribimos en el texto de las fotos de otros, "es un híbrido" y regresamos la observación a nivel de género o los dejamos como una supuesta especie que no es, claro es el caso de los Quercus, Opuntia, Parthenium, etc.
lo que sugiero es que se pueda generar la posibilidad de marcar la especie como un híbrido, así los especialistas de cada clado, no solo con sus fotos, podrían ver variantes, clinas genéticas e incluso podrían aparecer especies con potencial uso y no se quedarían perdidas en el limbo de lo no identificado que de por si ya es mucho, así al menos la gente podría saber que lo que registró es un híbrido, claro ejemplo está con ornamentales.
saludos

el asunto de la etiqueta es que nadie las utiliza, y solo se crearía el taxón para cada género que presente hibridaciones, por ejemplo todo poaceae y todo asteraceae quedaría prácticamente intacto pues no hibridan como otras especies poliploides

yo personalmente he identificado cientos de Agaves como híbridos, la mayoría naturales, también está el caso de Opuntia que es también importante por su uso potencial y también ayudaría a que la gente entienda que muchas de las especies ornamentales son híbridos y entonces por ejemplo está mal determinar como Bougainvillea glabra y quedan como bougainvillea en una discusión interminable de gente que propone el epiteto específico y quienes lo refutan, si quedara como Bougainvillea ×, osea una especie creada por cruzas y retrocruzas de muchas variedades ornamentales; también está el caso de los animales, pues éstos si se determinan como diferentes (aunque también en plantas pero seguimos bien incipientes en ésto) por ejemplo no es lo mismo la cruza de un burro con una yegua que la de un caballo con una burra... todo tiene que ver con el espécimen que funge como hembra es el que decide,en su mitocondria, que genes encender y cuales apagar.

saludos

I do not say that it is the point to leave an observation without identifying and without being able to reach a specific category, if not, that it is wrong to be left alone as a genre and to check a box is something that they DO NOT do, if they do not even check the "captivity / cultivated" box, but is easy for us the ones that identify species to just select the specie as we usually do with the rest

yes anyone can do and still a big problem wolrdwide with no one using it (we talked about that in the reunion wit Scott, CONABIO and NatGeo), that's why i suggest to put it as a specie to be typed on the suggestion for specie

here an example, Agave attenuata is a plant only native to central Jalisco and is very difficult to survive by its own in the wild because of its lack of defense for herbivores, and everyone leaves the specimen as wild, so when you revise the map it's useless to know the native range of distribution

now that was an example of people not using the captive/cultivated option, and we identifiers seems to be more interested in identifying species and reading description keys than clicking other option like phenology, flower color or so; i also have noted that many of us, if not all, when we see a specie wrong identified and not circumscribed into any known specie we use to identify to genus level and put in the text box very fewwords, like, "probably hybrid", "prob hyb." "hybrid" or even sometimes only an x or ×

and i'm sorry if you loose some of you Quercus species, but rather that than fake certainty with a wrongly identified specie, that does not help common people to understand differentiation between species.