Index fungorum - Bare names and higher classification missing

[camiplata]

Buellia cranwelliae Zahlbr. is missing from COL (reported via GBIF feedback), the name is not included as it appears as a bare name in index fungorum, nevertheless the index Fungorum does have the higher classification for this name. Thus, with an updated from the source we could gain this name for COL.

[yroskov]

Reported to Paul Kirk

[yroskov]

Just in case, there are 1,392 "bare" names just in genus Buellia: https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/2073/names?facet=rank&facet=issue&facet=status&facet=nomStatus&facet=nomCode&facet=nameType&facet=field&facet=authorship&facet=authorshipYear&facet=extinct&facet=environment&facet=origin&facet=sectorMode&facet=secondarySourceGroup&facet=sectorDatasetKey&facet=group&limit=50&offset=0&q=Buellia&reverse=false&sortBy=taxonomic&status=bare%20name

Perhaps Paul can give us a clue as to why.

[camiplata]

The same is happening with other genus:

see Usnea bare names instead of having its full classification

Actually this is happening for more than 162k names most of them species, this means that 30% of Index Fungorum is not been use by COL due to this issue

the bare names also have incorrectñy formated links:

this

http://https://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=375446

should be

https://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=375446

[yroskov]

30% of Index Fungorum is not been use by COL

That's right. Index Fungorum is a nomenclator, a list of ever published scientific names (similar to IPNI for vascular plants). Paul Kirk's Species Fungorum is a taxonomic checklist, a list of accepted taxa with synonyms vetted by taxonomists. Nomenclators are always contain more names than scrutinized checklist. We are using the Species Fungorum in the CoL, not the Index Fungorum.

Species names in nomenclators usually have historic position in the classification. It reflects its original placement when species was described, historical data.

The question is, why Paul did not include 94,264 species names in the vetted taxonomic checklist?

There could be two answers: either name is just a name with no evidence that it is a "good species" (i.e. taxonomically unvetted name), or it could simply be a lack of Paul's knowledge, an error. In the second case, if we find a better resource for the group, we can replace the Species Fungorum sectors with it.

[yroskov]

I found a third answer: it could be a glitch in Paul's protocols when he extracts Species Fungorum from Index Fungorum or when he prepares the CoLDP export for the checklistbank.

[TonyRees]

Or maybe Paul is still working on the larger task of manually checking the names, and it is a work in progress still... you could always ask him!

On Fri, 13 Sept 2024, 5:27 am yroskov, @.***> wrote:

I found a third answer: it could be a glitch in Paul's protocols when he extracts Species Fungorum from Index Fungorum or when he prepares the CoLDP export for the checklistbank.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/data/issues/700#issuecomment-2347076252, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDXIXJCDX7BZNAE43OMUS3ZWHTIXAVCNFSM6AAAAABN7MOFIKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGNBXGA3TMMRVGI . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>