Pachycephala. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Pachycephala pectoralis 506043
Taxonomic Split 99303
(Submetido em 11-04-2022)
|
|
dividido em |
|
Comentários
Currently 26 obs are getting bumped to genus, but unclear if that's too conservative or not conservative enough. The above map from Joseph et al. shows a fairly large gap between samples, but they do provide a dividing line. The same paper also shows a map that's based only on plumage, which suggests the division should maybe be further east?
@thebeachcomber @davidsando @ratite you've identified birds in this area, can you say anything about where the split should be?
So is there a zone/threshold at the junction of the two areas in which records go back to genus?
The way the atlases are set right now, these 26 observations will have their IDs raised to genus: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?id=96763793,94197866,92896427,92542525,90129751,90129639,82663818,65980425,58491827,54902694,52320523,44955765,44956343,44341779,42817005,41892155,41151514,40944048,40732500,40221698,40218570,38171113,36371127,35515991,35401526,34101334&place_id=any&subview=table&verifiable=any
The question is whether that list can be narrowed down (e.g. because you can look at the photos and can tell which way to split), or whether it should be broadened (e.g. because the maps from Joseph 2021 aren't precise enough).
I can't truthfully say I'd be able to separate the two here looking at the plumage in those pics, so I would personally be in favour of broadening it a bit
Ok, I added a bit more to the fuliginosa atlas and now 64 obs are getting IDs bumped to genus: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?id=96763793,94197866,93225740,93225661,92896427,92542525,91828619,90129751,90129639,89610063,82663818,68510298,81410242,78804302,65980425,67330602,71854109,75015558,73908146,72144162,72144288,70863990,68798703,67182519,61548031,58491827,56409501,56202223,54902694,46563388,52320523,48311672,47486896,46196609,46197049,46067944,45140877,44955765,44956343,44341779,42817005,42056575,41892155,41211634,41212310,41151514,40944048,40732500,40613891,40514590,40221698,40218199,40218570,38171113,37698056,37395468,36899077,36371127,36089145,35730719,35515991,35401526,34188168,34101334&place_id=any&verifiable=any
Anyone else should feel free to tinker with the atlases (or tell me to do so).
I'd agree with keeping it a little bit broad like it is, just as the plumage features can be a bit tricky from looking at the photos. Unfortunately I wouldn't be able to confidently separate them either
here's the current summary -- fuliginosa atlas and range map in green, pectoralis atlas and range map in orange, red points will get bumped to genus, blue points on the left (e.g. around Adelaide) go to fuliginosa, blue points on the right (e.g. around Melbourne) stay pectoralis
looks good to me; unfortunately there won't be a notification for users when theirs get bumped to genus right? I'll go through each of those 60 odd and let people know if that's the case
The IDs won't get bumped if they've opted out of having IDs automatically reassigned. For those that haven't opted out, there should be a dashboard notification, but I don't think it shows up in the header notifications.
any timeline on this swap?
Also worth noting there seems to be a population of Western Whistler in the whipstick north of Bendigo which won't be picked up by this filter swap.
@jwidness @loarie Something has gone wrong with this split as there are observations that there should be no doubt about that have been reverted to genus
e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/38659843#activity_identification_bf54de81-0033-4642-ad00-999f648724a7
Everything in region Adelaide Hills-Bal, SA, AU seems to have been affected. It seems it wasn't properly atlased when the split was committed. Not sure if restricted to this place or is a wider problem.
So we're on the same page, nothing unexpected happened here. The atlases were configured to replace nearly all (all but 182 out of 7344) existing IDs to one of the outputs with just 182 being replaced by the genus. The idea is that anything coarsened by those 182 IDs replaced with genus can be refined manually - here's a link to the obs in question if it will help people spend some time ID'ing them
That doesn't explain why observations in the Adelaide hills got "coarsened" unnecessarily as there is no doubt that they are P. fuliginosa based on locality. The affected records are not included in the link.
hmm - good point that is weird I'm not sure why https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/38659843#activity_identification_bf54de81-0033-4642-ad00-999f648724a7 was coarsened based on that location. There don't seem to be a ton of other examples though (or at least examples that haven't been refined manually) https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?locale=en&lrank=genus&preferred_place_id=1&subview=map&taxon_id=7902 I wonder if there was something weird with https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/38659843 e.g. like its location was changed and somehow didn't get properly indexed or something. Odd
From what I can see all records from within the below encompassing place were affected. I think it must have inadvertently been included in the atlases of both species when the split was committed. Looks like the records have mostly been tidied up manually, now.
Oceania (Continent)
Australia (Country)
South Australia, AU (State)
Adelaide Hills-Bal, SA, AU (County)
Joseph et al. 2021
