@nlblock, not sure if you're still working on this, but FYI, as far as I can tell, J. grisea is not atlased: it has an atlas, but no presence places, so this split would be pretty disruptive in its current state. Unfortunately the paper you cited is closed-access, so the only people who can update the atlas would be those with access to the paper.

I'm now seeing a length discussion at https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/472648. Maybe it would be wise to put a notice in this change's description asking people not to commit it until the situation with BoA has been resolved.

This seems to show a tremendous number of Common Buckeye (in the post-split sense) in CA. As I'm sure you've read, the lead author of the study doesn't believe any remain there (there's evidence of a historical population, which might have been a short-lived introduction).

Just pinging again, @loarie. From my understanding, it seems like almost all the buckeyes in AZ are Gray, so do you think it makes more sense to remove AZ and Sonora from the Common atlas? Any rare corrections to the resulting Gray IDs could be then made by identifiers later, if needed. That would leave just CO, NM, west TX, and Chihuahua where buckeye IDs would revert to the genus level.

Tagging some others who may have more input on the atlases: @hypanartia, @upupamartin, @kwillmott, @djringer, @brian_banker

That makes sense! I think I set this up before I knew about the taxon-input-as-output method that is now preferred. I just made the adjustments to the coenia (48505) atlas.

And yes, ssp. bergi and coenia will stay with coenia sensu stricto.

Great! Thanks so much, @loarie!

Thanks for your comment, Vernon. Can you explain what specific problem(s) you might have about this particular split (which has no basis in anecdotal opinions, BTW)? The papers published on Junonia in the past couple years are pretty good science, in my professional opinion as someone with a lot of professional background in systematics. However, this split was not committed because of my opinion. iNaturalist taxonomy is largely based on accepted taxonomic authorities and changes are not made willy-nilly. In this case, North American butterfly taxonomy on iNat generally follows the Pelham catalogue, which has long been recognized as a rigorous authority.

Taxonomy is in constant flux in any group of organisms; it's never "true". It's just an interpretation of a body of evidence that is constantly being added to. As you seem to disagree with how iNat taxonomy changes happen, I'd love to hear any suggestions you have about how to improve the process. iNat's success, after all, is based largely on having a community of users providing input on such matters.

And for what it's worth, if your comment "Persons making such suggestions as meaningful haven't a clue about insect taxonomy, and such suggestions are more akin to school-age minds" is somehow directed at me, you're incorrect.

Thanks for the work on this.

After this split the J. grisea is not showing up as an option in the computer vision suggestions within its range. Currently (in California) it shows Common Buckeye but indicates it's out of range. Does that have to wait until the latest model run to show up?

Thanks @loarie. Good to know. Do you happen to know if there's an enhancement for this (taxon split shows local split species in vision)? Would that be worthwhile if the training intervals are coming down?

@vabrou, there's no such thing as a species being "in fact true and valid" because taxonomy is inherently subjective. Besides, none of that is relevant to how iNaturalist handles its taxonomy in butterflies. If you have an issue with the official taxonomy, take it up with Jonathan Pelham and his collaborators because his catalogue is the basis for iNaturalist's butterfly taxonomy for the U.S. and Canada.

Regardless, have you read the recent papers surrounding Junonia taxonomy? Because it sounds like you haven't. If you'd like copies, I'd be happy to send them to you. To imply that this work is "unsubstantiated meaningless drivel" is incredibly insulting because it couldn't be further from the truth.

You also seem misinformed about the scientific publishing process. Yes, pay walls are very frustrating, and I have lots of gripes with them, too. But that doesn't make the data "private", by any means, as anyone can access these papers using procedures like Interlibrary Loan. Or just try Sci-Hub: https://sci-hub.st/.