Closed nickdos closed 2 years ago
Dave thinks unmatched taxa are ignored.
https://lists.ala.org.au/speciesListItem/list/dr914 contains a single unmatched taxon: Helvella chinensis
.
This name is found via a raw_name
search in biocache:
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q=raw_name%3A%22Helvella+chinensis%22
19 records which matches only to the genus Helvella
.
Clicking on the "View records" buton for this list:
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q=species_list_uid:dr914
does not appear to include any records for either Helvella
as a matched name or Helvella chinensis
as a "Scientific name (unmatched)".
I think this proves that unmatched names are not handled.
Species lists that are marked as "authorative" get indexed in SOLR so that the query syntax
q=species_list_uid:dr1234
returns records for species in the list at https://lists.ala.org.au/speciesListItem/list/dr1234 (made-up list).I suspect that under the hoods biocache is using the matched name to link records to the list. Many lists have unmatched taxa in them and so I'm wondering if the code is smart enough to index against the
raw_taxon_name
for those unmatched names or are records only found for the matched names (unmatched names ignored).Ideally, unmatched names will be checked against the
raw_taxon_name
.