Expert review of iNaturalist identifications of Australian millipedes in GBIF

This tab-separated file ("millipede_review.txt") is derived from the "verbatim.txt" file in a Darwin Core archive downloaded 2023-03-24 from GBIF (DOI: https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.jtpncb). The 2029 records in the download are "Research Grade" <em>iNaturalist</em> observations of millipedes observed in Australia. Encoding is UTF-8. The dataset has the following Darwin Core fields from "verbatim.txt" and my added fields (fieldnames in capitals): gbifID = GBIF occurrence record code; record accessible as https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/[gbifID] catalogNumber = <em>iNaturalist</em> observation number; record accessible as https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/[catalogNumber] scientificName = the taxon identification made on the <em>iNaturalist</em> platform and accepted by GBIF IDCHECK = my assessment of the identification (see below) COMMENT = my explanation for doubting an identification (see below) recordedBy = the name used for copyright assignment by the original observer on <em>iNaturalist</em> USERNAME = the<em> iNaturalist</em> username of the original observer RGID1 = the <em>iNaturalist</em> username of the first person to suggest the final, accepted identification RGID2 = the<em> iNaturalist</em> username of the second person to suggest the final, accepted identification RGID3 = the <em>iNaturalist</em> username of the third person to suggest the final, accepted identification RGID4 = the <em>iNaturalist</em> username of the fourth person to suggest the final, accepted identification RGID5 = the<em> iNaturalist</em> username of the fifth person to suggest the final, accepted identification I reviewed the images and image sets on <em>iNaturalist</em> that are referred to in these records between 2023-03-24 and 2023-04-02. I classed the <em>iNaturalist</em> identifications in the IDCHECK field as follows: correct - The image clearly shows the diagnostic characters of the taxon likely - The ID is probably correct, but I can't be sure because diagnostic characters aren't clearly visible in the image possible - The ID might be correct, but the image isn't good enough to distinguish the identified taxon from another, similar taxon unlikely - The ID is probably incorrect because the image appears to show a different taxon, although diagnostic characters aren't clearly visible incorrect - The image clearly shows the diagnostic characters of a different taxon