Misidentification of Malva observations in CA
I started this project in May 2021 because I noticed numerous misidentifications in iNaturalist for species in the Malva genus. Also, I was frustrated because the iNat Computer Vision (CV) algorithm was no help in figuring out the proper ID for most new Malva observations - it mostly suggested M. parviflora. Since the CV software was influenced by thousands of incorrect Malva IDs, the solution was to correct the misidentified observations. Now that most of the incorrect IDs have been corrected, the CV software is giving much more accurate species suggestions.
After working on this project for over two years and reviewing about 17,000 Malva observations in California, I've summarized my findings as follows:
Correct IDs: 7,218
Incorrect IDs: 3,663
Total ID'd to Species: 10,881
No Flowers/Fruits: 3,969
Unconfirmed: 2,514
Actions I've taken:
- Created this umbrella project and subprojects to manage the work.
- Researched identification resources and shared them with other iNat users, especially when ID errors were found.
- Reviewed all Malva observations (nearly 17,000) in California dating from 2007 to the present date.
- Corrected errors I found during the review, including those that had been set to Research Grade by previous reviewers. Tagged Malva experts when discrepancies were found.
- Collected metrics on misidentifications in Excel for reporting purposes.
While doing this work, I've made the following observations:
- In addition to the above errors, there are approximately 3,969 foliage-only observations of Malvas in iNat for California that had mostly been ID'd as M. parviflora. It is my understanding that foliage-only Malva observations should not be ID'd to species (except M. assurgentiflora, M. arborea, and M. subovata), so I reverted them to genus level and marked them "No, it's as good as can be" so they'd become Research Grade and get removed from the queue.
- The majority of Malva observations in California have been ID'd as M. parviflora. Thousands of observations, including the foliage-only ones, had been reviewed and set to Research Grade, so the CV model was suggesting M. parviflora for almost all new Malva observations, which perpetuated the problem.
- Almost all the M. sylvestris observations had been misidentified (most of them are actually M. multiflora). Hundreds of them had been reviewed and set to Research Grade, so I'm sure these errors were causing the CV model to suggest incorrect species. All these misidentifications have been corrected.
- "Cretan Tree Mallow" was set as the common name for M. multiflora in iNat when I started this project. I'm guessing people thought it must be a tree like M. arborea, so they avoided using it. In May 2022, I contacted Tony Iwane and asked, "How are common names determined in iNaturalist?" Here was his reply; I followed his advice:
They're not "determined", really, they can be added by any user (go to a taxon's page, click on Taxonomy, scroll down and click on "Add a name"). Site curators and staff can edit the order of preference for common names. In this case, I'd recommend flagging the taxon and suggesting that "cretan mallow" be the default name for the taxon and explain why."
There seem to be a few errors in Jepson eFlora:
-
Jepson states that M. multiflora is uncommon. On the contrary, it seems to be the second most common species in California.
https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=84861 -
Jepson also states that M. parviflora grows to a maximum of 8 dm (2.6 ft), but several users have noted that it can grow as tall as 15 dm (5 ft).
https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=32604
A project of this size cannot be managed alone. Many people have contributed their time and expertise to this effort:
- Many thanks to William Reinders (@reinderw) and Jose Potter Butler (@joepb) for working with me to correct the thousands of Malva ID errors in California. They are the authors of the fabuous and extremely useful document entitled: A Guide to the Identification of Wild Mallows
- Thanks to Valerio Lazzeri (@blue_celery) for sharing a simpler dichotomous key for identifying our most common Malva species and for helping to identify our CA observations: https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/blue_celery/66193-malva-sylvestris-vs-multiflora-vs-nicaeensis-vs-parviflora-key
- Special thanks to Cat Chang (@catchang) for identifying hundreds of Malvas and helping to correct countless non-Malva observations that had been incorrectly ID'd. As always, her expertise is invaluable.
Updated 2024-01-09. I missed about a thousand M. parviflora observations in southern CA in my first pass, which I'm still in the process of reviewing.
Updated 2024-01-14. Finished reviewing M. parviflora observations and made a second pass through all the M. nicaeensis observations. A large percentage were actually M. multiflora.
Comments
@reinderw, @joepb, @kueda, @catchang, @silversea_starsong, @matt_g, @blue_celery, @milliebasden, @loarie, @fredwatson
It is not advisable to remove "Tree" from "Cretan Tree Mallow" as now it overlaps with the existing "Cretan Mallow". I've seen "Smaller Tree Mallow" and other better alternatives that already exist.
@silversea_starsong, M. multiflora is not a tree. I don't see how using "Smaller Tree Mallow" helps.
Using the Taxa search page, I see Cretan Hollyhock (Malva cretica), but I don't see another "Cretan Mallow."
Malva cretica is more commonly called Cretan Mallow than Hollyhock. I seem to have to keep readding that name to it.
Smaller Tree Mallow is because of its general arborescent habit similar Malva arborea, but referring to the nature of it being overall smaller. The use of Cretan Tree Mallow was a mild misnomer back when someone else confused the names M. cretica. At that time, it also had a subspecies called Malva pseudolavatera cretica which added to this problem. It was then replaced with STM.
I think there are many common names that overlap species; that's why we use Latin names. If someone types "Cretan Mallow" into the Species field for an observation, both M. cretica and M. multiflora pop up as options. It would be up to the user to choose the correct ID.
eJepson also calls it "Cretan Mallow":
https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=84861
I wouldn't use eJepson as a source for the common names of European plants. All the UK guides call it Small Tree-mallow.
Cretan mallow for M. multiflora arises from a misconstruing of taxonomy and a general confusion of events in the past. We have all since moved on from that. As such, it logically should not continue to be used as the banner name for that species.
Very impressive! I'll be interested to see the final situation. I assume that nicaeensis and multiflora are being mistaken for each other? Sylvestris is mostly misIDed multiflora, so that adds even more to the latter total. At a guess parviflora is mostly split between nicaeensis and multiflora? What is arborea being IDed as?
Common names are often inaccurate or misleading or apply to multiple species, and I have no problem with that; for accuracy we have scientific names. But it has just occurred to me that since inat is becoming so popular we could possibly influence the usage of common names in society at large by manipulating settings on this website! Personally I value historical/cultural continuity more than scientific accuracy in common names though - people tend to use the names not as descriptors, but more as signifiers, similar to personal names. What is the difference between 'Cretan Mallow', and 'John Smith'? The mallow may not come from Crete; but nor is John a smith!
It is interesting how much rarer M. sylvestris is in California. It is our commonest mallow in NZ!
Similarly, it seems (at least when I visited NZ) M. parviflora is relatively uncommon while neglecta is everywhere...it's the opposite down in southern California.
"But it has just occurred to me that since inat is becoming so popular we could possibly influence the usage of common names in society at large by manipulating settings on this website!"
Yes, this exactly. We have the opportunity to "fix" and help normalize common names on a global basis. And the first step for that is by prioritizing names correctly in the case of old or mistaken names.
I still contend that M. multiflora is not a tree, so the common name is very misleading and has probably contributed to the thousands of incorrect IDs in California. Changing it to "Small Tree-mallow" would not help this situation. Many of the European countries probably use a name in a different language anyway. I was trying to stay consistent with CalFlora and eJepson, two references used by many people in CA, by using the common name "Cretan Mallow" afer checking with iNat staff to make sure it was OK to do so.
Sadly there are several issues with American floras using the "wrong" common name and it then being taken as the gospel of truth. However the folks at Jepson have expressed several times that they don't put much attention into choosing the correct one for exotics, and that their choices should not be followed utterly.
It's not important to me whether it's a "tree" or not, although the name still reasonably accurately describes it (as it is still semi arborescent with a single tall stem, and multi branching). My take here is primarily to avoid reviving an old name that took effort to sink in the first place (and for logical reason, among enough botanists and regional floras in the place this species is native to, that I see it right to agree with such).
@reinderw, to answer your questions:
Yes, M. multiflora and M. nicaeensis are frequently misidentified as each other.
Yes, M. sylvestris misidentifications will add to the total misidentification count. It looks like most of the M. sylvestris counts posted in California are horticultural. None of the CA postings I've seen so far look wild.
M. parviflora is often misidentified as M. multiflora. Also, a lot of the foliage-only observations have been ID'd as M. parviflora when they may not be that species.
M. arborea and M. assurgentiflora are often mixed up. M. assurgentiflora is a native species, but is also planted horticulturally.
As you and @joepb help correct these Malva misidentifications and more become Research Grade, I'm sure the iNat CV model will improve and help provide correct identifications going forward.
OK, @silversea_starsong, do what you think is best. I was trying to help correct a problem. I don't want to exacerbate it.
All the M. sylvestris is sorted now, in search for the arborea hybrid. Didn't find that one, but the other hybrids look equally interesting!
Thanks @reinderw! Did you look through this subproject too?
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/malva-cultivars-hybrids-california-a1613631-29c3-464f-903b-e73e3ff110db
@reinderw, I've been keeping an Excel spreadsheet to track the misidentifications I find. I'd be happy to send it to you, if you're interested. It shows which species are most frequently confused with each other.
I would love that! Thanks!
very interesting - thanks for all the work. So that gives a rough estimate of 7218/(3663+7218) = 66% correct?
Correct!
Add a Comment