Flag for Comment 2424970
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| daniel_e | bobbyfingers | Comment |
Perhaps I'm overreacting, but to me this looks like a pretty clearcut attempt at intimidation. A taxonomic debate like this should be resolved (or left unresolved) based on the data, not because people are afraid to contradict a particular individual. |
Jan. 6, 2019 21:02:44 +0000 | bouteloua |
see comments |
Comments
@russgray seems capable of standing his own ground here per his reply to the comment directed at him.
These IDs transcend individual observations, there's a lot more to the story than the comments and IDs on a single observation.... @bobbyfingers you may want to write a journal post that you can link to that details why you ID certain species of herps the way you do when it counters the references used in the iNaturalist taxonomic frameworks like The Reptile Database. I think that would help focus the arguments in one place, and diffuse a lot of tension that can result from these kinds of IDs....
I didn't take it as intimidation, I think @bobbyfingers likely has valid reasons to believe what he does. I just conform to data and current literature rather than anecdote. That isn't to say this particular anecdote isn't based in fact or data that simply isn't published yet.
Like I said before though, I'm more than happy to help go through records and make corrections when new taxonomic changes arise.
I've recently made a range map in R using KDE of the eastern and gray ratsnake "research grade" data in hopes that we can shine some light on a few areas of interest and contention:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10161166234305307&set=a.10152738513480307&type=3&theater
Cheers!
@russgray, I apologize for bringing you into this. You certainly do seem capable of handling yourself.
@beetledude, I certainly agree with you. It can be quite frustrating when people insist on adhering to a taxonomy based on literally no published data. But I still think the best way to handle it is to keep things professional and non-personal.
I've looked through a ton of rat snake observations on iNaturalist, and as far as I can tell, @bobbyfingers' taxonomic approach goes roughly like this:
If it's gray and blotchy, at any location in the US, it's P. spiloides.
If it's black and west of the Appalachians, it's P. spiloides.
If it's black and east of the Appalachians, it's P. alleghaniensis.
That breakdown is not supported by any publication anywhere. It's like a weird arbitrary mishmash of the old morphology-based taxonomy and the new genetics-based taxonomy. In fact, literally no publication refers rat snakes in eastern Florida to P. spiloides at the species level. They're either P. alleghaniensis (according to the current taxonomy) or P. obsoletus (according to the old taxonomy). If anyone wants to check me on this, feel free to search out the literature for yourself. So that's another arbitrary decision that's being made here, in the absence of published support.
The primary reason this taxonomy has gained traction in iNaturalist is simply because most of the herpers here don't have the educational background necessary to understand the published literature, so they just follow people like bobbyfingers who are very loud and persistent.
But at the end of the day, I know my place here. I'm a very educated herpetologist and a professor, but I'm still just one guy with no actual authority in the iNat community. The job of policing this whole mess falls to the iNat admins, not to me. If they're not concerned whether IDs are based on publications or not, then they are certainly free to manage things that way. It's their program. I'll just keep putting literature-based IDs on snakes, and people can do what they want with that information.
@daniel_e that's the way I see it as well.
@catenatus It is inaturalist policy to use the Reptile Database for ID of reptiles.
Your statement - "If everyone automatically agreed with a theory based solely on poorly orchestrated, bias research full of more holes than an afghan then contradicting peer review would never be attempted." makes no sense . There is plenty of issues with a myriad of taxonomy; however, those issued need to be addressed and revised through scientific sampling, then accepted and published by the scientific community. Not just people who say "this is wrong". That isn't how taxonomy works. Unless you're Raymond Hoser.
There is no reason for anyone to just believe a bunch of people (educated or otherwise) on an anecdote of taxonomy that is different from that which is currently accepted in scientific literature and primary databases, just because they say so.
Hey folks, after discussing how best to handle disagreements with iNat's taxonomy vis a vis IDs, we added an FAQ that clarifies and explains our policy that users should keep to iNat's current taxonomy when adding IDs: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/help#taxonomydisagree
Clearly this is a subject where emotions run high, but in the interest of maintaining consistency with IDs among a global community such as iNat, please keep to the current iNaturalist taxonomy when you add an ID.
"If you can’t accept a taxonomy that you don’t completely agree with, iNaturalist is not the place for you"
seems a bit harsh
Maybe need to clarify that people can still leave comments, otherwise it seems a bit...autocratic.
Yeah... I've been using the data for a while now, especially the ones being mentioned, and now because the taxon P. spiloides is being thrown all over the place, even down into peninsular Florida, above lake O. as per Bobbyfingers and his friends who refuse to conform to Reptile database have put fourth a group effort to label them as such. This makes the distribution maps, KDE radiation maps and all other ENM analysis I've been doing on Pantherophis essentially useless, as they radiate out into places they clearly shouldn't be.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/12469421#activity_comment_2443843
You even clarified here that Reptile database is the source which should be used when IDing herpetofauana. Reptile database says:
Pantherophis spiloides - "USA (west of the Apalachicola River and the Appalachian Mountains and east of the Mississippi River. South from Louisiana along the gulf Coast of the US to Florida, and north in W New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, S Michigan, NE Indiana, C Illinois, and SW Wisconsin."
Pantherophis alleghaniensis - "east of the Apalachicola River in Florida, east of the Chattohoochee River in Georgia, east of the Appalachian Mountains, north to Ohio, SE New York, W Vermont, Pennsylvania, Maryland, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, south to the Florida Keys. Compare to obsoleta (fide BURBRINK 2001)."
The apalachicola river is right by Talahassee, which is typically what should be used to distinguish the two species. However Bobbyfingers has been going through records east of the river all the way down into the peninsula and tags multiple people so they can agree with his ID, thus changing it to P. spiloides.
For people who just use Inaturalist for ID purposes and making digital 'life lists' as a hobby, this isn't a problem. Though for people like myself who are relying on accuracy of data when pulled and put into R, it just trashes the data.
@Bobbyfingers, the Reptile Database may or may not have its inaccuracies, but 1) it follows all updated taxonomic literature, and 2) it is Inaturalist policy to base identifications on the taxonomy it provides.
You keep asserting that you and the people you consistently tag are "The most competent herpetologists on Inaturlist", yet not a single one of you have provided any substantial counter arguments to why the current literature and taxonomy in Reptile Database should be disregarded other than you know a guy who knows a guy.
Again, if you provide any substantial reason for the taxonomy to be disregarded from every single primary and secondary source out there, I am absolutely open to change my mind on the matter.
There is nothing unfair of what I've said. Monopolizing taxonomy against current literature is unscientific without providing any appropriate, substantial or evidence based counter arguments.
If I got a group of people together and asserted that they are "Competent scientists in X field" and tagged them after providing incorrect taxonomy to a community database where the majority rules, I could potentially destroy that database. While this may not be what you're doing, it certainly falls under the same 'appeal to majority' fallacy.
@tonyrebelo
Skip over the details above, but note this as a good example of an "'appeal to majority' fallacy" versus an expert-weighted system. I don't know if that debate has gone anywhere; I cannot follow the Google Group (or I'll do nothing else).
The debate fizzled out and quietly died. What iNat was attempting was an internal assessment of agreements to assign a reputation. The above seems like a good way to game the system: get a team of supporters to agree with one another - and that groups reputation will soar while cautious experts will get no reputation or even be sidelined. The current system is very communistic: every one is equal, but if you acquire followers and assassinate the opposition, then you win.
it is just a pity that good taxonomy loses out.
I dont have a solution, other than to recognize the world's taxonomic experts with a weighted ID score. But that does not seem to be an accepted paradigm on iNaturalist.
There are two legitimate sources of division here. One is the debate over the merits of the “current” taxonomy, while the other is over whether or not the “current” taxonomy has been adequately mapped. Some of the criticisms of the “current” taxonomy from the first debate are pertinent to the second debate. Unfortunately, we have to add to this a continuous barrage of criticism directed primarily at @bobbyfingers, which seems to be devolving into oblique insults and thinly-veiled personal attacks against him and anyone who shares his position. Rather than providing a defense against the criticisms raised, these attacks are attempting to stifle legitimate dissention and debate.
Although all three of these issues are intertwined, I feel that it is useful to break this down and address each of these in order.
Debate 1:
The criticisms of the “current” ratsnake taxonomy are many. It originates with the Burbrink, Lawson, and Slowinski paper from 2000. A central criticism of this study is that the proposed separation of the ratsnake into three species based on genetic clades exclusively uses mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA or just mDNA), and not nuclear DNA; moreover, the analysis is based only on a single mDNA gene. The problem is that mDNA is matrilineal (inherited exclusively from the mother), and is not relevant to the morphological development of the animal. While mDNA can show patterns in ancestry (provided no mutations have occurred), it is completely blind to paternal lineage. It is thus unable to show if two clades of a species are truly isolated or sympatric (or not). Despite this, the study still projected three separate species based on these mDNA findings, which was really outside the scope of the data presented.
However, some authorities (notably SSAR and CNAH) adopted the taxonomy presented in the study. Many see this as problematic, not just because the study itself is problematic, but because a single finding should not cause a wholesale rejection of existing taxonomy without careful review or replication. The species in question is ecologically significant and widespread in a populous region, readily accessible to academia. If nothing else, replication and further study is called for; it is unscientific to allow a single outlying result to change the system without confirmation. Twenty years ago, when this study was conducted, any genetic work like this was relatively novel, and a detailed understanding of DNA profiles – or even that there are different types of DNA – was not widespread. One might speculate that some of those reviewing this paper, or those considering adopting its taxonomy, may have either been in awe of the advancements in genetics and thus predisposed to see any finding as relevant, or insufficiently informed to properly evaluate it and embarrassed to admit this.
Prior to the Burbrink taxonomy, the ratsnake was divided into a number of subspecies. The snake has a number of obvious color forms. These are geographically discrete, but intergrade with adjacent forms over zones of contact that are in some places quite narrow, and in other places rather broad. The subspecies classification addressed this quite well; it acknowledged regional variation while treating the species as a whole as a single ecological actor. Given that each of these regional forms may represent some sort of local adaptation or advantage, and thus require due consideration for conservation efforts, not to mention detailed study, it is useful to have a way to refer to each of them that isn’t just a direct reference to the “former” taxonomy. However, with the adaptation of the Burbrink taxonomy came a wholesale dismissal of the subspecies, because they didn’t “conform to the molecular-based phylogeny of this species” (Burbrink et al. 2000). This is the genetic equivalent of being unable to see the forest for the trees. As stated, the forms are geographically discrete; they don’t just pop up anywhere. The reason they couldn’t be correlated to the genetic work in the study is because it is inferior science; again, the study only examined a single mDNA gene, which would have no bearing on an animal’s morphology.
Moreover, while lists and maps of the samples used in the study are shown, there is no information provided with respect to the color form to which each sample belongs, making the already-questionable claim that they don’t conform completely spurious.
There are more concerns with the “current” Burbrink taxonomy, and more depth to the criticisms, but this should be sufficient to address the issue here.
Debate 2:
Taxonomic debate and disagreement is not uncommon. However, when the “accepted” taxonomy still provides a distinct and discrete label for the organism in question, those who disagree will tend to “go along to get along” – we still know what said organism is, even if there are disagreements about how to classify it or its phylogenic relationships. This is why you will see those who disagree with the “current” taxonomy (like @bobbyfingers and myself) attempting to ID “Black” Ratsnakes according to the Burbrink map. This is done begrudgingly at times, especially when a snake is found in an area where clades meet.
(As an aside – if any of the curators here (@bouteloua?) are so inclined, we could really use a “Pantherophis alleghaniensis/spiloides/obsoletus complex” option for those snakes that are found in the ambiguous areas along the clade contact zones; this would allow for more specificity than “Pantherophis sp.” and improve data quality, regardless of one’s position or the outcome of the taxonomic debate.)
However, the map used to illustrate the distribution of the ratsnake clades (the current “species”) is continental in scale. It lacks detail and nuance. It reminds me of the British and French of the colonial period dividing Africa into its modern countries – drawing simplified lines across large areas, oblivious to local geography or ethnicities. The Burbrink et al. (2000) paper describes the boundary between the central and eastern clades as following the Appalachian Mountains and, south of these, the Apalachicola River, because the river is a source of division in other species (which isn’t necessarily relevant). The contention here is that the boundary between the central and eastern clades in Florida is incorrect. In-and-of itself, this is not a rejection of the Burbrink taxonomy. Except for the former “Black Ratsnake” subspecies, all of the former subspecies fall entirely within areas delineated as one clade or another – almost. The former “Gray Ratsnake” is entirely within the central clade, with the exception of the snakes extending into Florida east of the Apalachicola, which is the source of contention. Had the Burbrink study properly indicated the (former) subspecies to which each of its specimens belonged, this would be easier. However, if the morphologically “Gray” snakes correlate with the “spiloides” clade, which seems probable, it means that the actual clade boundary is east of the Apalachicola, and/or that there is a large zone of integration.
Interestingly, the Burbrink et al. (2000) paper provides a map of the origin of specimens used for gathering data. One snake belonging to the central clade is mapped east of the Apalachicola, noted as “anomalous”, and as indicating that some eastward dispersal of the central clade may have or may have always occurred. This actually gives support to the contention that the clade boundary is wrong. East of this “anomalous” record, there are only nine Floridian specimens informing the study – a pitifully small sample size. Under the “former” taxonomy, the state had either three or four distinct subspecies including an extensive area of overlap or integration in northwest Florida, east of the Apalachicola – consistent with the brief discussion of the “anomalous” record in the paper. While this may further undermine the current taxonomy (i.e. Debate 1), it is equally relevant to the argument that the clades have not been appropriately mapped.
As this taxonomic debate is unresolved, iNaturalist observations can provide accumulating data to inform it, one way or another. Insisting that ratsnakes be classified based on a single imprecisely-drawn, large-scale map, regardless of other factors, obscures the fact that actual field data may be showing something contrary to the “current” taxonomy (despite the fact that it is “published” and the snakes being found east of the Apalachicola likely can’t read).
The Problem:
Those advocating for a re-examination of the purported clade boundaries have been making identifications and providing some statements in support of this view. The problem is not that those who disagree have been providing counter-arguments; in fact, they haven’t. Instead of responding to the actual critiques, they simply repeat that these IDs do not follow the “current” taxonomy, and suggest that those posting such IDs are not following the rules of iNaturalist. This seems to include a position that holds “published” data (i.e., Burbrink et al.) as superior and sacrosanct. Any argument against “published” data that doesn’t end in a journal citation seems to be treated as automatically invalid, regardless of how well-founded or sound that argument is (contrary to basic scientific principles of open inquiry and critical thought).
Moreover, these posts (in favor of the “current” taxonomy) seem to target @bobbyfingers specifically. Every time @bobbyfingers posts a “Gray Ratsnake” ID, @daniel_e copy-and-pastes the exact same blurb citing the Burbrink study onto the observation. Recently, @russgray has started doing the same thing, double-pasting the statement in a number of cases, like a spam post. Only @bobbyfingers receives comments disagreeing with him; others, including me, have posted a number of rebukes of the “current” taxonomy and/or the clade mapping, yet do not receive a response. To me it looks like @bobbyfingers is being singled out and targeted.
Furthermore, a number of the comments are thinly-veiled insults, which do nothing to advance the pro-current-taxonomy argument. Even in this thread, @daniel_e said this:
“The primary reason this taxonomy has gained traction in iNaturalist is simply because most of the herpers here don't have the educational background necessary to understand the published literature, so they just follow people like bobbyfingers who are very loud and persistent.”
In addition to being incredibly condescending, and wrong, this is clearly a personal rebuke of @bobbyfingers. This is inappropriate, and not the first example of this, yet @daniel_e isn’t the one flagged here. It was @daniel_e that flagged @bobbyfingers, and not the first time that he has done so. Given the persistent, repetitive, and targeted comments, it is only natural for @bobbyfingers (or anyone else) to betray a bit of frustration; as soon as he does so, he is pounced on with this flag.
The original comment that caused this flag is definitely not an attempt at intimidation, but I do believe that flagging it is. Rather than engaging in a substantive discussion, @daniel_e is trying to suppress a legitimate dissenting view and have his opponent suspended on a technicality. This is surprisingly petty and most certainly inappropriate.
Its not totally clear to me whether this is a taxonomic dispute or an ID dispute.
Since no one's really arguing whether Pantherophis alleghaniensis and Pantherophis spiloides are two separate species, its not a traditional taxonomic dispute. Its more of dispute about exactly where the boundaries are between these species.
If a Pantherophis alleghaniensis/spiloides/obsoletus complex node that is the child of Pantherophis and the parent of P. alleghaniensis P. spiloides P. obsoletus would solve resolve this dispute, I'd be in favor of adding it.
Out of curiosity, do Pantherophis alleghaniensis/spiloides/obsoletus form a monophyletic clade?
@bouteloua point taken, I've added language about adding a comment instead of an ID and amended the last sentence.
The point is that iNat's taxonomy actually is somewhat democratic and there are venues for trying to get it changed that any user can follow. Asking our users to adhere to the taxonomy when making IDs maintains the work that the community has done to curate said taxonomy.
We're kind of having a taxonomic argument in the background of an ID dispute. The range boundary/overlap is the real issue, but it bleeds into the taxonomic debate easily. I try to outline this above. (It took three full comment fields and I consider that the concise version.)
As for whether the three species are monophyletic clade... yes, or almost yes. In one sense, it is hard to hard to say for sure, because the only study that provides evidence for this (Burbrink et al. 2000) is the same study with the methodological weaknesses at the center of this debate. Most of us unhappy with that study would argue that the three lineages should be a single species. One of the reasons for that is the "alleged" overlap/intergration zone in Florida that is the cause of this particular debate. There are also large zones of intergration and interbreeding in Louisiana and Ontario. Here is one study:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.6494&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Either way, the three species (or "species") are very close.
The reason I say "almost yes" is because the Burbrink study also split off P. bairdii, but that split has been suggested previously and has other evidence supporting it. P. bairdii is also morphologically distinct as an adult, which is also less likely to cause contention or confusion.
In most of the range(s) of the P. alleghaniensis/spiloides/obsoletus group, there is at least one other sympatric Pantherophis sp. (like the Corn Snake, P. guttatus). Having the complex as an ID option would allow a narrower ID for data entry, when the full species under the current taxonomy can't be determined without a cheek swab.
The only thing I would add to what's already been said is that the most recent research on the subject (which I have linked to in all my IDs) actually supports lumping P. alleghaniensis and P. spiloides, but I only mention that for information's sake, as that's not really what anyone is arguing about here.
What is ironic, though, is that I've become the poster child for the Burbrink taxonomy on iNaturalist even though I'm actually the only person who's posted links to published data contradicting the Burbrink taxonomy!
Regarding the possibility of a P. alleghaniensis/spiloides/obsoletus node, I think that's an excellent idea, although I have my doubts about whether very many people would actually use it.
Even if many people dont use the P. alleghaniensis/spiloides/obsoletus node, it would be the next higher community consensus taxon for any disputes, be they ID, taxonomic or personal - or for use by identifiers who wish to stay out of the conflict zone.
@Pantherophis
Until this comment string that you've made, I have never seen any rebuttal from you, catenensus or bobbyfingers on this matter. Not a single one. Which is exactly why I've said over, and over, and over again: " if you provide any substantial reason for the taxonomy to be disregarded from every single primary and secondary source out there, I am absolutely open to change my mind on the matter."
"Recently, @russgray has started doing the same thing, double-pasting the statement in a number of cases, like a spam post. Only @bobbyfingers receives comments disagreeing with him; "
This is a perfect statement for me to address both points:
1) What you are calling "Spam posts" are copy/paste replies to Bobbyfingers after he went through every ratsnake ID that I disagreed with and copy/paste replied his statements. If you're going to talk about singling someone out, start with yourself.
2) the reason why people are pointing to @bobbyfingers when talking about disagreement with this particular matter isn't because we hold any grudge against him, its because every single time a new ratsnake comes out around the florida panhandle, he IDs it as P. spiloides and then tags 5 or 6 people. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I'm almost tempted to gather 20 people and tag them in random herp IDs that go against current literature, the CNAH, the SSAR, and Reptile Database, and have them give whatever ID I decide it is. That's essentially what you guys are doing with this.
Yes we understand that you, bobbyfingers and all of the others he consistently tags to agree with his ID are against the currently accepted taxonomy, but you still haven't even addressed the fact that with the old map, with Pantherophis obsoletus quadrivittata (assuming that's what your group keeps basing your P. spiloides ID from) NEVER went down into peninsular Florida. Yet here you guys are, IDing ratsnakes as P spiloides, all the way down to the peninsular curve and even to Morriston and Wilston. There is absolutely no evidence that P. spiloides would occur this far into the peninsula and basing your taxonomic preference on phenotype instead of genotype in these cases makes no sense. Its one thing to argue about a sample size not being large enough and go against every herpetological agency against accepted taxonomy; its another thing to make up your own ranges based on nothing.
@russgray I promised myself I would say no more on this subject, Russ - but I've grown sick and tired of your personal "attacks" and your aspersions as to my level of herpetological expertise, and my extensive familiarity with the taxonomy of North American colubrids. As I have mentioned before, the people I "tag" for input on incorrect identifications happen to be some of the most accomplished, forward-thinking Herpetologists that iNaturalist has available, and I am extremely proud and honored that some of them consider me worth "following" (just like you used to! lol!). They are not the mindless sycophants you and @daniel_e make them out to be - ready to indulge my "whims" in regard to identification, and concur with my assessments at my command. I find your insinuation along those lines extraordinarily insulting - not to me, but to them. You might as well go take a nap or something, because I will continue to proudly and very happily "tag" as many open-minded Herpetologists who question shoddy, inadequate, and inconclusive "research" pertaining to their field as necessary for correction, with the firm belief that pending study will finally "get it right" - rather than "make like a sheep, and follow". Give it a rest, or maybe you could pray to the Reptile Database for more (mis)guidance. (joke, not "insult"!) Best, Fingers @gtsalmon
Another thing that you continue to do, @bobbyfingers, is assert your expertise and the expertise of the people you tag as an appeal to authority on this matter as "some of the most accomplished, forward-thinking Herpetologists that iNaturalist has available".
I'm also a herpetologist, I've literally worked with snakes around the world, and I also happen to be from Florida where I've held my most recent position as a herpetologist at the University of Florida. I'm overly familiar with the taxonomy of colubrids in my state as well. Yet I haven't once professed that because I'm a career herpetologist, I should be seen as the authority on the subject. Nor have I felt the need to tag ever person I know who would agree with me on the matter because I know they can think for themselves and they don't need my help to 'ping' them into action.
You keep proclaiming you're insulted, and what about all of the herpetologists who disagree with you? What you're saying to me with that statement is that anyone who you aren't tagging (which is anyone who wouldn't agree with you on the matter) are not accomplished, forward-thinking Herpetologists available on Inaturalist? THAT is insulting, not being called out for monopolizing an ID you don't agree with.
Also, you keep saying "You followed me lol" as if it has something to do with me agreeing with you on this for some reason -- Yes I followed you for about 2 hours before unfollowing, because I hadn't used the option yet and I wanted to see what it did. You happened to be the first person on my feed that IDed an animal.
If you feel personally attacked, that has more to do with your perception than my words. I'm merely stating exactly what you have been doing to create more of a problem for this taxonomy/range issue. Nothing that I've said so far has been anything but the truth.
hey folks - @tiwane is out of town this week - so I thought I'd remind everyone to please give https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/community+guidelines a re-read and maybe considering walking a way from this disagreement for a while
@russgray Sigh... I see you're full of youthful enthusiasm and a sense of herpetological self -worth, Russ - and I promised myself I'm done with this comment string as the counter-arguments against the correct view of the actual range and genetic identity of P. spiloides have become pointless and redundant. The last thing I want to address is the fact that I've never had a "need to assert my expertise" (despite having to listen to you "blow your own horn" about your own level of "expertise" in the above comment) in the field of Herpetology, nor have I done so throughout this discussion. The only thing I'm guilty of is defending it - and that of the others, however pointlessly, against people like yourself. Happy herping, and I wish you the best in furthering your herpetological education. This is the absolute last time that you or anyone else will goad me into another comment on this discussion, however interesting and vindicating it has been to me. I have some Ratsnakes to identify. Best of luck, Fingers @catenatus @pantherophis
@bobbyfingers, how exactly is telling you that I HAVEN'T used my position as a herpetologist as an argument to appeal to my authority "blowing my own horn" or showing off my "self-worth"??
That quite literally is the opposite of what I just did.
You can keep that condescending rhetoric all to yourself. Bye now.
I see you've also deleted several of your comments where you were asserting you and your followers as the experts on the subject, so as to make it seem like I'm making this up. Good job.
Post 1/2
I'm going to roll this back to the post from @russgray this morning that re-ignited the otherwise-cooling embers.
You said:
I have never seen any rebuttal from you, catenensus or bobbyfingers on this matter.
There have been multiple discussions on multiple observations. This doesn't happen on every single observation because there is no value in having the same argument in multiple places. It also may not be fair for the original observer.
Here is a doozie where I was involved:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/11388345
Here are two more where I made an extensive comment:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/11983611
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/9382686
Here is one where someone else "complied" with the "official" taxonomy, but made a pretty strong critique of the science on which it is founded:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/7934367
You said (over, and over, and over again):
If you provide any substantial reason for the taxonomy to be disregarded from every single primary and secondary source out there, I am absolutely open to change my mind on the matter.
There is only one primary source. One. That's in itself is the first problem.
Despite methodological flaws, the study's taxonomic "findings" (I'll come back to these) were adopted by SSAR et al. That is, in itself, a second problem. To me it suggests the people reviewing the study didn't have sufficient background knowledge to critically appraise the conclusions, or perhaps it wasn't critically appraised at all. Once an organization considered an "authority" adopts it, it's just dominoes. That's why it is reflected by the Reptile Database, and iNaturalist. I would like to see iNaturalist make an intelligent exception.
What the "secondary sources" say is not credible if the primary source they parrot is garbage.
You said:
...every single time a new ratsnake comes out around the florida panhandle, he IDs it as P. spiloides and then tags 5 or 6 people. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
So what? I don't think it is problematic to be thorough, consistent, or prolific. It isn't just ratsnakes - @bobbyfingers is listed as a top identifier of most North American herp species. I know you said it isn't, but it sounds a bit like a grudge.
In my own case, I asked @bobbyfingers to tag me. I am very interested in the species in this region, because it is such a poignant illustration of the problems with the "current" taxonomy. I often have time constraints and would miss seeing observations otherwise.
You said:
...gather 20 people and tag them in random herp IDs that go against current literature... and have them give whatever ID I decide it is. That's essentially what you guys are doing with this
Not at all. This isn't random. We refuse to subvert our own informed and objective assessments to a single flawed study, just because it is published. A study published in 2006 (Gibbs et al.) had strong evidence suggesting the species split was not warranted, yet despite that and the many methodological criticisms, the "authorities" continue to defer to the first study. I can't explain that.
There was a medical study that showed a link between autism and vaccines. Even though it was heavily flawed and simply wrong, it was published. Despite oodles of conflicting evidence and being repeatedly debunked by subsequent studies, some people continue to believe that one study. I can't explain that either.
There are lots of examples of "official" taxonomic changes that are questionable or debatable. Most of the time, the issue is mainly semantic, and those who disagree will follow a consensus to promote consistency. However, this case is an extreme example of a lack of consensus. Blindly following the prescribed taxonomy does a disservice to our understanding of this/these species.
To be continued…
Post 2/2
You said:
but you still haven't even addressed the fact that with the old map, with Pantherophis obsoletus quadrivittata (assuming that's what your group keeps basing your P. spiloides ID from) NEVER went down into peninsular Florida
First, P. o. quadrivittata is the Yellow Rat Snake, is currently part of P. alleghaniensis, and is found all the way down peninsular Florida. These IDs are based on P. o. spiloides, which falls almost entirely within the map for P. spiloides, except for this area. The elevation of that subspecies to full species in the current taxonomy speaks to intent here. Hence the actual contention at the root of this argument, that the map is wrong, within the current taxonomy.
Second, P. o. spiloides ALWAYS extended into peninsular Florida. The "old" subspecies map showed a significant area of overlap between the "Gray" and "Yellow" subspecies, from east of the Apalachicola River to a point past Cedar Key. The population of phenotypical "Gray" snakes beyond there were once considered a separate subspecies, the "Gulf Hammock" Rat Snake.
You said:
its another thing to make up your own ranges based on nothing.
Even the original Burbrink et al. study acknowledged that some midland-clade snakes (i.e., the current P. spiloides) either have spread or perhaps have always been east of the Apalachicola River, yet still selected the river as the official clade boundary on the map that now defines the species.
You said:
basing your taxonomic preference on phenotype instead of genotype in these cases makes no sense.
I completely disagree. It makes no sense to ignore the very obvious regional phenotypes, or to deny classifying them in any way. They clearly have a genetic component. The snakes don't go through a "random phenotype painting device" when they hatch. They express one or another or some blend based on their ancestry.
That one study supporting the current taxonomy dismissed the "old" subspecies because they did not correlate to the "molecular profile" of the snakes... except that only a single mitochondrial gene was profiled, not any of the nuclear genes that might play a role in phenotypical expression. That is like saying the phenotypes are invalid because they never correlate to whether the observer prefers coffee or tea. What, that makes no sense? Exactly.
Now, returning to something you said:
...the reason why people are pointing to @bobbyfingers
Two people. You were saying...
the reason why people are pointing to @bobbyfingers when talking about disagreement with this particular matter isn't because we hold any grudge against him,
That's rich, considering all of the subsequent posts today. All of the subsequent bickering makes it clear that you have taken this personally. The man is literally the most prolific herpetologist on this platform, and you have gone out of your way to get under his skin and provoke an emotional response.
This whole exchange proves a point a made a few days ago. No one who is in favor of using or retaining the so-called official taxonomy has engaged in any substantive way on the subject. I have seen no defense of the study, no defense of adopting it, no critique of any of the arguments against it. The response has only been the same copy-and-paste posts or personal attacks, all directed at @bobbyfingers save maybe that mild one to me this morning. Some of those have been met with indignation, which I think is perfectly natural and fair when provoked like this.
If you disagree with why I or @bobbyfingers or anyone else is making these IDs the way we are, respond to the substance of the critiques. We may still agree to disagree, but please keep it to the facts about the snakes, not your opinions of other snake people. We could at least come together and get the alleghaniensis/spiloides/obsoletus complex ID/node that we so clearly need.
You're correct about P. o. quadrivittata, I meant P. o. spiloteis never went into the Peninsula on the old map...
@Pantherophis
I encourage you to identify a single remark I've made that could be taken as an "attack". I still don't understand how disagreeing with your standpoint on something equates to an attack... Yet here you are repeating it again and again.
I also notice in those taxonomic debate examples you posted you're arguing with Wolfgang Wuster who is quite literally a PhD herpetologist and taxonomist... Though you and bobbyfingers don't tag him in the ratsnake posts becaus he isn't, as bobbyfingers proclaimed, "some of the most accomplished, forward-thinking Herpetologists that iNaturalist has available".
I'll break this down as concisely as I possibly can so this conversation can be over with, I have no intent to argue anymore.
1) I said Bobbyfingers tags multiple people on these ratsnake IDs in order to monopolize the ID (get enough people that agree with him to change the ID) - Fact; not insult or personal attack.
2) In regards to the first point, anyone else who goes on to challenge the ID of bobbyfingers is met by relentless opposition (again, look at your own examples to see this in action) even to the point of insulting professional herpetological taxonomists (and deleting comments like he did here). This is a textbook form of "appeal to majority" dominance, and fallacious behavior. Fact; not insult or personal attack.
3) Using language like "some of the most accomplished, forward-thinking Herpetologists that iNaturalist has available" when referring to one's self or others that agree with you is blatant "appeal to authority" fallacious behavior. Fact; not insult or personal attack.
4) My standpoint on the identifications in this area have been clear from the beginning, I don't know how that is being overlooked now. I choose to ID the animal based on the currently accepted taxonomy via scientific literature, the Reptile Database, the CNAH, and the SSAR. If every one of these herpetological agencies has decided this taxonomy is currently accepted, I yield to their collective expertise until further studies prove it wrong. Fact; not insult or personal attack.
Wolfgang Wuster also told you something similar to what I've been saying this whole time:
"... if you have data refuting this, then you SHOULD publish them. That's how mistakes, if that's what they are, are corrected."
That's all I have to say about this matter.
Is there a way of "unfollowing" a flag?
Does clicking unsubscribe down below not work?
You're not just a "herpetologist", Russ - you're a comedian, too! Who knew? Does this mean we're not "friends" anymore? haha! (sorry, Scott, Tony, and Cassi - just hadda try and bring a little levity to this rapidly degenerating discussion). "Just when you think you're out - Russ drags you back in"! I pinky-swear - not another "hiss" out of me on this initially promising discussion, now turned a ridiculous joke. Is there a way to "flag" a "flag"? (kidding)! Peace to all, Fingers
ta: I was looking upstairs ...
Nice input once again, bobby. Really showing how professional you are.
Another possible solution in addition to creating a multi-species node within Pantherophis is to just follow the suggestion of Gibbs et al. (2006 - linked below) and lump P. spiloides into P. alleghaniensis. It's not a widely-followed taxonomy, but it is based on solid published data, and it's the most recent study on the topic. Basically, they found extensive hybridization between the two species in Ontario (in an area where Burbrink thought P. alleghaniensis didn't even occur), based on analysis of nuclear DNA, suggesting that the two taxa should perhaps be lumped. Pantherophis alleghaniensis is the older of the two names, so it would become the name of the new lumped species.
I don't entirely understand how taxon swaps and so forth work in iNaturalist, but my assumption is that all snakes identified as P. spiloides would automatically be switched over to P. alleghaniensis (sensu lato), which would eliminate the entire debate and maybe end these angry comment threads once and for all.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.6494&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Hey folks,
So @loarie and I have been discussing this and to sum up the situation so far, it seems:
1) there is a disagreement about exactly where Pantherophis alleghaniensis stops and Pantherophis spiloides starts (which is probably unanswerable since these species probably intergrade).
2) side A (ie Bobby, et al) feel strongly the snakes in a part of Florida are Pantherophis spiloides. Side A mentions people on their side to back up their IDs.
3) side B (ie Russ, et al) feel strongly that the snakes in that part of Florida are Pantherophis alleghaniensis. Side B mentions people on their side to back up their IDs
4) meanwhile, there's a lot of argument threads (e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/314956, https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/294938 and elsewhere) where side A and side B argue their respective positions. While supporting evidence has been cited, we believe this is in ‘intergrade’ territory in which its hard to say either side is definitely wrong (ie its not like Side A is saying this is an elephant). These discussions aren't in the spirit of the community guidelines, with both sides to blame.
5) representatives of both side A and side B have reached out to iNat staff privately, each asking for staff to take action against the other side for what they see as unfair mentioning/recruitment of additional identifiers to back up their IDs.
Species sometimes intergrade and there are places on the tree of life where adding hard boundaries will always be somewhat arbitrary, conditioned on the available information about a species. You've helped surface such a place. iNaturalist currently doesn't handle these situations well, so we've added a new "complex" rank to iNaturalist that we hope will help. The “Eastern/Gray Ratsnake Complex (Complex Pantheropsis allegensis)” node (which sits above these two species and below the genus) will be the pilot use case here and we're hoping it will:
a) provide a more accurate taxonomic level at which IDs can sit when there’s controversy around hard species boundaries.
b) head off seemingly endless arguments relating to this kind of controversy that don't contribute to a healthy environment here on iNaturalist.
So while this disagreement has led to what we hope will be an improvement to iNat, the tone of it is not one that will be tolerated. Disagreement is fine, but please keep it civil and evidence-based, not personal, and please assume others mean well. The difference between totally legitimate use of disagreeing ID and looping in other voices with mentions versus unjustly ‘mobbing’ someone mostly boils down to whether people are treating one another with civility and respect.
Finally, it's important to keep things in perspective. Remember that the Community ID is not an official decree, it's just a label derived from IDs made by the iNat community. Anyone studying these snakes can always download the data and split the species however they would like for their use.
Regarding the new ‘complex’ rank. Our intention is to use it sparingly in integrade situations. It should only be use for monophyletic (ie sibling) groups of species - not species that look alike but aren’t each other’s closest relatives. You can read more here:
https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/19977#activity_comment_2314018
Scott and Tony
No, it is not clearcut and it is not intimidation. Many taxonomists, including myself, often get hot under the collar and/or exasperated at intransigence. Please pardon our passion.
I think the above comment may fall into the same category of irkedness. @bobbyfingers is a colourful man, but mean-spirited he certainly is not.