WoRMS Cestoda - genus Echinococcus is missing from COL

[jhnwllr]

Describe the problem:

Genus is Echinococcus present in iBOL but names are missing author strings and synonyms.

Echinococcus vogeli should be Echinococcus vogeli Rausch & Bernstein, 1972 https://www.gbif.org/species/7011607 https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/331

Echinococcus ortleppi should be Echinococcus ortleppi Lopez-Neyra & Soler Planas, 1943 https://www.gbif.org/species/10303314 https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/333

Echinococcus felidis should be Echinococcus felidis Ortlepp, 1937 https://www.gbif.org/species/10042383 https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/338

Echinococcus shiquicus should be Echinococcus shiquicus Xiao et al., 2005 https://www.gbif.org/species/7011608 https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/332

Echinococcus oligarthrus should be Echinococcus oligarthra (Diesing, 1863)
https://www.gbif.org/species/8070786 https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/334 with basionym: Taenia oligarthra Diesing, 1863 missing syn: Echinococcus cruzi Brumpt & Joyeux, 1924 missing syn: Echinococcus pampeanus Szidat, 1967

Echinococcus canadensis should be Echinococcus canadensis Webster & Cameron, 1961 https://www.gbif.org/species/10135430 https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/340 with basionym: Echinococcus granulosus canadensis Webster & Cameron, 1961 missing syn: Echinococcus granulosus borealis Sweatman & Williams, 1963

Echinococcus equinus should be Echinococcus equinus Williams & Sweatman, 1963 https://www.gbif.org/species/10531375 https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/339 with basionym: Echinococcus granulosus equinus Williams & Sweatman, 1963

Link to effected CoL webpages: https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/dataset/1127

Literature references: Romig et al. 2015: Taxonomy and molecular epidemiology of Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato. Veterinary Parasitology 213 (3–4): 76-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.07.035 Vuitton et al. 2020: International consensus on terminology to be used in the field of echinococcosis. Parasite 27: 41. https://doi:10.1051/parasite/2020024

[yroskov]

@bart-v, I do not know how much this relevant to WoRMS... WoRMS is a data provider for class Cestoda in CoL, but genus and species listed above are non-marine, as I can figure out.

[bart-v]

These names are not in WoRMS, for now as the focus was indeed marine only. We have active editor for Platyhelminthes and Cestoda, who usually also add non-marine taxa But work in progress...

[mdoering]

So WoRMS Cestoda is not globally complete and we need some other source to provide parts of Cestoda? The genus Echinococcus appears an important one to have in COL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinococcus

Wikipedia claims 6000 species, WoRMS contains ~2400. Are the marine & terrestrial taxa taxonomically clearly delimited so we can hunt for other sources in known areas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cestoda#Internal

[ApoSimon]

Just searched Echinococcus in IRMNG https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1308129. The species records contain full author information for severeal species but synonymization needs to be updated. However, GBIF does apparently not harvest species level records from IRMNG. Maybe it would be easiest to update the species level taxanomy in IRMNG and harvest the data for COL / GBIF?

[bart-v]

1. IRMNG is not maintained at all on species level. This would just add more outdated info. I vote against adding data from IRMNG as-is
2. We have asked the WoRMS editors for ideas on non-marine taxa, or other options: will keep you updated on this
3. Looking at the numbers, new editors or existing quality source can certainly help. Possibly in combination with IRMNG.

[yroskov]

@dhobern, Cestoda is probably another topic for Taxonomy Group.

Plus, it would be nice, if "gap analyses" also highlights incomplete taxa in thematic checklists. Quite often, terrestrial or parasitic taxa might be missing in freshwater or marine checklists.

[TonyRees]

Hi all,

Just to elaborate on Bart's statement RE IRMNG species data - that content was acquired from multiple sources (some overlapping, and/or containing errors or inconsistencies) for "IRMNG version 1" pre-dating the move to VLIZ, over the period 2006-2013 approx., but has not been generally reviewed or extended subsequently; for example it includes content from the Catalogue of Life, 2006 version only, some of which will by now be out-of-date. It is also potentially error prone (not checked for inconsistencies between different data sources) and incomplete (much other available content never entered), which are the reasons that we do not presently include it in the "standard" IRMNG data downloads. It remains visible via the web interface because it is potentially of some value for external queries, e.g. for spell checking in some cases, also as a starting point for future improvement, should the interest in and resourcing for such activities exist in the future.

Regards - Tony Rees, IRMNG compiler, 2006-current .

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia https://about.me/TonyRees

On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 20:51, bart-v @.***> wrote:

1. IRMNG is not maintained at all on species level. This would just add more outdated info. I vote against adding data from IRMNG as-is
2. We have asked the WoRMS editors for ideas on non-marine taxa, or other options: will keep you updated on this
3. Looking at the numbers, new editors or existing quality source can certainly help. Possibly in combination with IRMNG.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/data/issues/358#issuecomment-973917856, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDXIXORKQSPOHNDLIDM7C3UMYMY5ANCNFSM5IJHQH5Q . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

[ApoSimon]

Attached below is a partial synonymy of the genus Echinococcus containig all currently accepted species. Maybe this is of some help. Echinococcus_sp.csv Primarily based on: Romig et al. 2015: Taxonomy and molecular epidemiology of Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato. Veterinary Parasitology 213 (3–4): 76-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.07.035 Stiles, C.W. 1905: The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as applied to medicine. Hyg. Lab. U.S. Pub. Health & Mar.-Hosp. Serv., Bull. No. 24: 1-50 Vuitton et al. 2020: International consensus on terminology to be used in the field of echinococcosis. Parasite 27: 41. https://doi:10.1051/parasite/2020024

[DaveNicolson]

Family Taeniidae (including Echinococcus) is complete in ITIS from 2023, in addition to the rest of cestodes outside of order Cyclophyllidea.

[DaveNicolson]

Is it possible to include the full family Taeniidae from ITIS? It is a complete & recent treatment for the whole family. It's more than just Echinococcus... This important family has about 60 species in 4 genera & 2 subfamilies.