@jameskm @birdwhisperer This is incorrect; G.C.D. Griffiths' publications on Pegomya group the subgenus Pegomya into sections, and these sections are further subdivided into species groups (which he called "superspecies"). "Complex" implies a smaller grouping, and has never been applied to the sections of Pegomya.

I don't know what to tell you. The sections I am using are from published entomological works (https://www.pemberleybooks.com/product/flies-of-the-nearctic-region-8-2-anthomyiidae-10/3163/; https://bioone.org/journals/proceedings-of-the-entomological-society-of-washington/volume-120/issue-1/0013-8797.120.1.25/New-Rearing-Records-for-Muscoid-Leafminers-Diptera--Anthomyiidae-Scathophagidae/10.4289/0013-8797.120.1.25.short), and no other name has been given to these groups. Creating new names/ranks for these groups on iNaturalist, when they are still in use in current literature, will only add confusion, and since the system let me do it it should be left that way. Thank you.

I understand that Griffiths' use of sections may not be in accordance with the ICZN, but these names are still in use in the literature, as in my 2018 paper cited above, which was reviewed by two anthomyiid taxonomists and published in a well-known entomological journal. The Pegomya bicolor species group is a small group of species within the larger P. bicolor section, so it doesn't work to call them both "complexes." "Complex" is a term used to refer to messy groups of very similar species whose limits haven't necessarily been figured out yet, and a complex often includes undescribed species. A "species group" is a group (defined in the literature) of named species that are closely related and may not be distinguishable without, e.g., examination of genitalia. And sections, as Griffiths used them, are groupings of related species groups within a genus or subgenus.

The difference between a complex and a species group needs to be addressed by iNaturalist creating a separate "species group" rank above "complex"; for now I've been using the "complex" rank for these and adding "group" to the name for clarification, but this isn't ideal. The issue with "sections" of anthomyiid flies is already solved because iNaturalist has an option for this. Yes, it's a little confusing that Pegomya bicolor can refer to a species, a species group, or a section, but no more confusing than the fact that Pegomya can refer to a genus and a subgenus, or the fact that Lonicera can refer to a genus, subgenus, or section.

I don't have time to keep arguing about this, I just want you to understand that the ranks I am adding refer to specific entities that are known only by these names/ranks, and when you change the ranks or names you are obscuring their meanings because they can no longer be directly linked to anything that has ever been published. Yes, I haven't made a rank for "Pegomya bicolor species group" because I haven't come across observations that can be identified to this level specifically, but that doesn't mean it's okay to call the P. bicolor section a "complex," because it is unclear what grouping of species this includes--the name "Pegomya bicolor complex" has been used literally nowhere. There is not disagreement among anthomyiid fly taxonomists about what to call these groups, and if "It is iNaturalist's goal to stay consistent in all things" then we shouldn't be creating completely novel names and ranks.

I understand that adding descriptors like "group" is discouraged, and the problem of non-translatability would be solved by creating a separate rank for "species group", which again is not the same as a species complex. "Superspecies" is an outdated equivalent of "species group," and I agree that none of the other things you listed ("aggregate species", "species swarm", "sibling species", "cryptic species") warrant being given a rank on iNaturalist; the first two seem equivalent to "complex" and the other two refer to members of species groups or complexes but aren't separate concepts.

Are we sure the ICZN is actually denying sections as a rank? It is attempting to organize a selection of ranks into taxon group names but I don't see it denying the usage of genus divisions and sections. Furthermore, section 10.4, in fact, says "A uninominal name proposed for a genus-group division of a genus, even if proposed for a secondary (or further) subdivision, is deemed to be a subgeneric name even if the division is denoted by a term such as "section" or "division"; but a name used for an aggregate of species which is denoted by a term such as "superspecies" is not deemed to be a genus-group name [Art. 6.2]." This leads into my second question asking what other sources besides Wikipedia says that sections must only be applied to a certain hierarchical placement for zoological classification, namely between order and family, because ICZN references it being applied below genus here, but also does not outright deny usage of these ranks.
I'm low on time so I might have missed something else in the code.

And it really isn't hurting anything that way. Please just let it be.

Hmm... It really should be a group decision, no one person, no matter how much of an expert, should really get to decide the end result, I think. Not that I'm disagreeing; I think the whole argument on whether to use sections/complexes should be decided by site admins.

On that note, if this bothers you so much, why don't you submit a note to an entomological journal proposing new ranks for Griffiths' sections and subsections of Anthomyiidae to create an arrangement that you find acceptable? I will happily go along with it if you do. I used these ranks in a 2018 paper that was reviewed by two fly taxonomists and there were no comments about them. But Griffiths' "superspecies" are now referred to as "species groups," so change is certainly possible. If you want to use "complex" for every taxonomic rank between genus and species, though, that is a real problem.

I have to amend what I said a bit. The glossary of the ICZN defines "subgeneric name" (there are two entries for this term in the glossary) as specifically "A scientific name of a taxon at the rank of subgenus" and not what I misinterpreted as any rank between genus and species. The ICZN therefore recognizes sections and such only as subgenera provided the names are available. The names of the sections used by Griffiths' are not available since they consist of more than one word (in a binomen rather than a single word like Crinurina for example) per Article 11.8. However, despite the numerous number of sections used across the family and their usage in literature, no nomenclatural acts have been proposed to any extent in the atmosphere of these problems, and no literature discussing these problems appear to exist at all.
It still stands that BugGuide uses these sections and that they are incredibly useful in identification.