In two ca 500000-records sets I downloaded on 3 August 2017, there are a very large number of data items inappropriate or invalid for the Darwin Core field in which they appear - too many to detail here.
There are also many examples of incorrect field usage. One is the "subgenus" field, which is supposed to contain 'The full scientific name of the subgenus in which the taxon is classified. Values should include the genus to avoid homonym confusion. Examples: "Strobus (Pinus)", "Puma (Puma)" "Loligo (Amerigo)", "Hieracium subgen. Pilosella".' (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#subgenus) In one of the datasets I downloaded, "subgenus" is populated with single names with or without brackets, e.g. "Ananotaphus" and "(Ananotaphus)". None of the entries follow the TDWG recommendation "Genus (Subgenus)".
In two ca 500000-records sets I downloaded on 3 August 2017, there are a very large number of data items inappropriate or invalid for the Darwin Core field in which they appear - too many to detail here.
There are also many examples of incorrect field usage. One is the "subgenus" field, which is supposed to contain 'The full scientific name of the subgenus in which the taxon is classified. Values should include the genus to avoid homonym confusion. Examples: "Strobus (Pinus)", "Puma (Puma)" "Loligo (Amerigo)", "Hieracium subgen. Pilosella".' (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#subgenus) In one of the datasets I downloaded, "subgenus" is populated with single names with or without brackets, e.g. "Ananotaphus" and "(Ananotaphus)". None of the entries follow the TDWG recommendation "Genus (Subgenus)".