What’s not so obvious is that other iterations of the same concept are not denatured - For example I list Wurmbea dioica ssp. lacunaria ( and the sensitive species list matched it as shown below) but any records stored as Wurmbea dioica subsp. lacunaria are still being displayed undenatured. It would appear the list needs to also match it to the subsp spelling as well as the ssp. (I have previously tried to investigate why half the states use subsp and the other half use ssp but of course there is no easy answer.)
I therefore need to add the subsp spelling options as well as the ssp to our SA sensitive list ( I did this today and I did it a few weeks back for the Pterostylis cucullata example in original email) . Im unsure if other state data managers have noticed this or find it an issue but thought it was worth a mention.
What’s not so obvious is that other iterations of the same concept are not denatured - For example I list Wurmbea dioica ssp. lacunaria ( and the sensitive species list matched it as shown below) but any records stored as Wurmbea dioica subsp. lacunaria are still being displayed undenatured. It would appear the list needs to also match it to the subsp spelling as well as the ssp. (I have previously tried to investigate why half the states use subsp and the other half use ssp but of course there is no easy answer.)
I therefore need to add the subsp spelling options as well as the ssp to our SA sensitive list ( I did this today and I did it a few weeks back for the Pterostylis cucullata example in original email) . Im unsure if other state data managers have noticed this or find it an issue but thought it was worth a mention.