Flag for Taxon: Harebell Complex (Complex Campanula rotundifolia)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| whitneybrook | epsilon | Harebell Complex (Complex Campanula rotundifolia) |
Inconsistent application of RG |
Dec. 2, 2022 21:12:45 +0000 | kitty12 |
Seems to be working as designed |
Comments
Yes, checking the "No, it's as good as it can be" checkbox under "Based on the evidence, can the Community Taxon still be confirmed or improved?" in the Data Quality Assessment is what bumped the first one to RG.
Thank you. Would you recommend doing that where we currently can’t identify plants in this complex to a species level in this area? I don’t want to impede future improved IDs, but that seems like a good solution to the current problem. https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/flora-of-the-yellowstone-ecosystem/journal/73094-campanula-rotundifolia-complex-harebells
Yes, this is the way to go, although it should only be done if there's no potential (given the state of the science at the time it is done) for a credible lower taxon identification. It can be reevaluated in the future in light of new information, of course.
I started using this taxon for plants formerly known as rotundifolia. In this case an observation with this IDx2 progressed to RG: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/96442245. In this case, an observation with the complex IDx2 is still Needs ID: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/139595001. What is the expected behavior for this complex when IDed? I apologize if I have overlooked some aspect of iNat function that explains this.