Is InsectIdentification.org a reliable source?

[Flatbush Gardener]

I'm working with an intern to develop some insect education social media content. I'm reviewing what they wrote for scientific accuracy.

They cited InsectIdentification as an authoritative source for a lifecycle fact I can't confirm anywhere else. The site claims to be "100% human-generated", but there's no "About" page. It also links out to some affiliated sites with the "XXX of StateName" title format. I recall some discussion here that several "Bees of StateName" sites were sus.

I'm hoping that the site is legit. Maybe the author(s) is even on this list!

Thanks for all your information sharing over the years.

Yours in Nature,

Xris

-----

Chris Kreussling (Flatbush Gardener)

Certified Interpretive Guide, NY Master Naturalist

Web Site/Blog: https://flatbushgardener.com/)

iNaturalist: https://www.inaturalist.org/people/xris

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/people/flatbushgardener/

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/xrisfg

Social: http://ecoevo.social/@xris

Signal

[Douglas Yanega]

On 7/28/25 10:52 AM, Flatbush Gardener wrote:

I'm working with an intern to develop some insect education social media content. I'm reviewing what they wrote for scientific accuracy.

They cited InsectIdentification as an authoritative source for a lifecycle fact I can't confirm anywhere else. The site claims to be "100% human-generated", but there's no "About" page. It also links out to some affiliated sites with the "XXX of StateName" title format. I recall some discussion here that several "Bees of StateName" sites were sus.

Aside from the other issue, I would like to point something out:

"life cycle" is two words when used for the biological phenomenon.

"lifecycle" is a term from manufacturing and software development, and is unrelated to biology. It has been mistakenly "leaked" into numerous online resources referring to biology, but it has almost never been published - on paper - in a biological context. Presumably, it's because peer review has been preventing it, and most websites aren't peer-reviewed.

The logic is the same for the difference between "house fly" versus "dragonfly", or "stink bug" versus "ladybug" - two words when it's an actual fly/bug, one word when it's not. Software isn't alive, so it doesn't have a "life cycle".

Peace,

-- 
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314  voicemail:951-827-8704
FaceBook: Doug Yanega (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
             https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82

[Flatbush Gardener]

I was a software engineer for four decades, so it's for me to make that mistake! Thank you for the correction.

-----

Chris Kreussling (Flatbush Gardener)

Certified Interpretive Guide, NY Master Naturalist

Web Site/Blog - iNaturalist (Observations) - Flickr (Photos) - Vimeo (Videos) 

Signal - Social

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "beemonitoring" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to beemonitorin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beemonitoring/3f70e637-a353-44b8-9cd3-945e62c62084%40gmail.com.

[Jack Neff]

That site looks like low budget click bait to me.  I would not rely on it as an authoritative source for  much of anything.  Checking a few of the bee entries I noted that some of the bee names are misspelled and one of the "sawflies" is a lepidopteran larva. The discussion of Agapostemon viriscins (sic) mentions the presence of queens but that species is communal and would not have queens.    I'm sure you can do better.

Jack

John L. Neff Central Texas Melittological Institute 7307 Running Rope Austin,TX 78731 USA 512-345-7219

John L. Neff Central Texas Melittological Institute 7307 Running Rope Austin,TX 78731 USA 512-345-7219

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "beemonitoring" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to beemonitorin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beemonitoring/3f70e637-a353-44b8-9cd3-945e62c62084%40gmail.com

.

[John Purdy]

This one is interesting and important. Getting the terminology right is essential for the advancement of science and a reason for formal education instead of self-teaching in uncurated online sites like google.

Note that all ai is based on uncurated input and must be competently reviewed before being accepted, which is seldom done.  

Taxonomy and systematics are complex, rapidly evolving expert fields of study, and identification of species can be challenging even for experts. Proliferation of identification apps based on photographic (2-dimensional) morphometrics is unverifiable and not a good idea. My personal view is that we should have a single, well curated global standard source, i.e. that should be a reliable but efficient process for updates. See  https://doi.org/10.5066/F7KH0KBK

This is what Linneus was trying to accomplish.

Regards

John Purdy

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 2:15 PM Douglas Yanega <dya...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[David Cappaert]

The insect ID www site is of a piece with the ai-generated coloradonativebee.com site discussed here, which was withdrawn. This one doesn't necessarily threaten legitimate bee resources, because it is so laden with ads and clumsy execution that few would take it seriously. A google search ranks a number of other low quality ID sites.These are going to be increasing in number, as the technology that enables them is ever more available.

There isn't much we can do, other than compete with higher quality alternatives. I think of three target groups: the curious general public ("what is this caterpillar"); the serious researchers ("I am on couplet 73 in the monograph"); the folks in between, that are willing to learn traits and terminology for a particular purpose ("I need a species count for this nature preserve").

For  the first, the general public, I would direct anyone to iNaturalist. They wouldn't necessarily get a slam-dunk on species ID (the algorithm is especially poor for bees). But they would have some kind of grasp of the diversity of salamanders and mushrooms and flowering plants. They would see a wealth of images. They would encounter true experts in the process of community ID. Most importantly, they would experience the learning process as a participant with something to offer.

For the experts, there is the primary literature and some authoritative online resources. And of course personal connections and research collections.

For me, the interesting audience is the in-between, the serious people that are not-yet-expert. DiscoverLife and BeeMachine address this group. There are MANY guides to bumblebees in particular, partly because accurate ID of lhis large colorful genus is reasonably attainable. There are other resources that are scientifically rigorous AND accessible, such as the beautifully illustrated keys from Oregon Bee Atlas. There are others I could mention, and many others I don't know of. 

There may also be a comprehensive guide-to-the guides site that curates the resources available to the non-specialist. If there isn't, we need one.

David Cappaert

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beemonitoring/CAMTaGK0cpBJVFxm6a2%2By45jOescAcytKjFwLrN7VqukeT4NvQg%40mail.gmail.com.