search

CatalogueOfLife / testing

Editorial tests and discussion to prepare for COL releases
2 stars 0 forks source link

3i Auchenorrhyncha (id 2317): test report #135

Open yroskov opened 3 years ago

yroskov commented 3 years ago

3i Auchenorrhyncha dev

https://data.catalogueoflife.org/dataset/2317/classification

image image image

yroskov commented 3 years ago

In ac19 we have taken from 3i Auchenorrhyncha (additional paleotaxa are missing) :

Animalia - Arthropoda - Insecta - Hemiptera - superfamily Cicadoidea Animalia - Arthropoda - Insecta - Hemiptera - Membracoidea - families Aetalionidae, Melizoderidae, Myerslopiidae and subfamilies Cicadellinae & Typhlocybinae from Cicadellidae

In CoL 2021-06-10 from 3i Auchenorrhyncha (including paleotaxa):

Animalia > Arthropoda > Insecta > Hemiptera: Myerslopiidae, Pereborioidea, Palaeontinoidea, Prosboloidea, Cicadoidea, Scytinopteroidea, Hylicelloidea, Dysmorphoptiloidea, Blattoprosboloidea, Ligavenoidea Animalia > Arthropoda > Insecta > Hemiptera > Membracoidea: Cicadellidae, Melizoderidae, Aetalionidae

yroskov commented 3 years ago

[by a mistake] I have completed assembly of 3i Auchenorrhyncha dev (id 2317) on prod.

Taxa assembled & synced: Blattoprosboloidea, Cicadoidea (+family Membracidae from MOWD), Dysmorphoptiloidea, Hylicelloidea, Ligavenoidea Palaeontinoidea, Pereborioidea, Prosboloidea, Prosbolopseoidea

All sectors synced 2021-07-09.

@gdower, could you please "replace" old version of 3i Auchenorrhyncha (id 1189) with the newly assembled checklist from 3i Auchenorrhyncha dev (id 2317). Please keep old metadata (1189) with a new checklist. (I was not able to modify metadata in 2317 - have no access). = FIXED 2021-07-15: metadata have been updated for 2317. Now, 2317 is a master id for the dataset.

yroskov commented 3 years ago

No any ISSUES & TASKS resolved in the checklistbank, because 3i Auchenorrhyncha much bigger then those sectors which we took in the CoL.

yroskov commented 3 years ago

Checks through the public interface at PREVIEW https://preview.catalogueoflife.org/?taxonKey=HP 2021-07-12.

Example: Blattoprosbole tomiensis

In ac19: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2019/browse/tree/id/8d5dfb968886f536be02b56f350d70f9 image

In PREVIEW: https://preview.catalogueoflife.org/data/browse?taxonKey=8HDXD image

@geoff, could you pls have look on this after your return.

yroskov commented 3 years ago

To be translated later:

From: Dmitry Dmitriev Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 14:45 To: Roskov, Yury yroskov@illinois.edu Subject: Re: 3i Auchenorrhyncha in CoL

Юра, те проблемы которые мне попались:

  1. Не помечены вымершие таксоны

  2. Роды привязанные к подтрибам и сами подтрибы просто выпали. Пример род Hecalus. Находится в подтрибе Hecalina, триба Hecalini. В списке есть только Hecalini - пустая триба, все что привязано к трибе - отсутствует.

    • [x] Subtribes and their children genera are missed. See empty tribe Hecalini.

  3. Подрод Gargara (Gargara). Все виды привязанные к подроду - попали в группу not assigned.

    • [x] All children species of subgenus Gargara (Gargara) dropped in NotAssigned node.

  4. Типовой подвид выпадает из списка. Gargara pallida lineata есть, a Gargara pallida pallida - Отсутствует.

    • [x] Type subspecies Gargara pallida pallida is missing. There is only subspecies Gargara pallida lineata

  5. Если вид был описан в другом роде - пропали год описания и скобки в авторской строке, пример Gargara patruelis. Также выпала первоначальная комбинация. Но это не у всех видов. Например, Erasmoneura vulnerata выглядит нормально.

    • [ ] In some (not all) species, the original combination is missing (see Gargara patruelis). The Year and brackets are missing in the authorstring of subsequent combination YR: example is taken from MOWD database: https://preview.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/3FB2V

  6. Из списка синонимов вы выбрасываете последнюю комбинацию с цитатой. Erasmoneura vulnerata (Fitch, 1851). В списке синонимов отсутствует "Erasmoneura vulnerata (Fitch, 1851)" и кто создал эту комбинацию. Я понимаю, что эта комбинация совпадает с современным названием виды, но в Зоологии это важно, у нас автор комбинации не включается в авторскую строку вида.

    • [ ] You have thrown away the latest combination with a reference. For example, Erasmoneura vulnerata (Fitch, 1851) is missing in the list of synonyms and no reference top the publication, where this combination was established. I do understand, that this combination is an accepted name, but reference with the combination is important in Zoology. YR: Accepted name should not be repeated in a list of synonyms in CoL, but reference, where the combination was established, should appear together with the name (in this case, reference to the publication of new combination should be in the field "Published in" which supports accepted name. Reference linked to the original publication should follow after the name Erythroneura vulnerata Fitch, 1851 in a list of synonyms. image

  7. E. vulnerata имеет синоним. E. gradata. Я так понимаю должна быть значек цитаты с библиографической ссылкой. Но таковой отсутствует.

    • [x] Erasmoneura vulnerata has a synonym Erasmoneura gradata. I am expecting to see a bibliographic reference with the synonym, but it is absent.

  8. Виды привязанные к надвидам попали в список unassigned. Пример: род Dilobopyga.

    • [ ] Species, which are children of superspecies, dropped in NotAssigned node. For example, genus Dilobopyga.

  9. в TW семейство Cicadellidae включает в себя 420 подвидов, 23181 вадидных названий видов. 2790 родов. In TW, Cicadellidae family consists of 2790 genera, 23181 valid species & 420 subspecies. YR: in recent CoL preview version: 2079 genera, 17771 valid spp, & 307 subspecies. https://preview.catalogueoflife.org/data/search?TAXON_ID=8HBPW&facet=rank&facet=issue&facet=status&facet=nomStatus&facet=nameType&facet=field&facet=authorship&facet=extinct&facet=environment&limit=50&offset=0&rank=species&sortBy=taxonomic&status=accepted

@gdower

yroskov commented 3 years ago

Metadata updated with @proceps. Re-synced 2021-07-15.

yroskov commented 2 years ago

New version was exported from https://sfg.taxonworks.org/downloads/220 and imported to DEV 2021-09-10: https://data.dev.catalogueoflife.org/dataset/1189/classification

Test results: (for attention of @proceps, @gdower, @mjy)

Shortcut fix: all 3i names with portion "supersp" were blocked in the workbench 2021-10-18. Synced.

mjy commented 2 years ago

The issues are missing references, and missing fossil status, correct? Names all seem OK?

yroskov commented 2 years ago

As for me, yes: refs & fossil status are main unresolved issues.

mjy commented 2 years ago

Good, this makes sense given what we understand.

proceps commented 2 years ago
mjy commented 2 years ago

I feel like we'll make notes optional. IIRC some of the SFs GSDs passed them on.

yroskov commented 2 years ago

Yes, Notes are optional in CoL and definded by GSD wish/needs. However, we cannot take them off on our side, in the checklistbank.

yroskov commented 2 years ago

It is a stopper for 3i updates.

yroskov commented 2 years ago

2021-10-19: NEW EXPORT from https://sfg.taxonworks.org/downloads/238; file 3i_world_auchenorrhyncha_database_coldp_otu_id_319_2021-10-19t133625+0000

@gdower has deleted data in comments field. File 3i_Aurchenorrhyncha_2021-10-19_no_remarks was imported.

Resolved: image

Tasks SYN-SYN sp (diff acc, same auth) and SYN-SYN sp (same acc, same auth) remains unresolved.

Synced 2021-10-19

yroskov commented 2 years ago

Examples: Aceratagallia humilis Oman, 1933 is a synonym for Aceratagallia (Aceratagallia) humilis Oman, 1933 and Aceratagallia (Aceratagallia) humilis humilis Oman, 1933 Aceratagallia nanella Oman, 1933 is a synonym for Aceratagallia (Aceratagallia) nanella Oman, 1933 and Aceratagallia (Aceratagallia) nanella nanella Oman, 1933 Alaca wygodzinskyi Linnavuori, 1954 is a synonym for Paratanus wygodzinskyi (Linnavuori, 1954) and Paratanus wygodzinskyi wygodzinskyi (Linnavuori, 1954) Aphelonema convergens Bunn, 1930 is a synonym for Nenema convergens (Bunn, 1930) and Nenema convergens convergens (Bunn, 1930)

(@gdower, @proceps it looks like the issue with synonymy of type subspecies exists in 3i data as well as in SFs not-maintained in TW)

proceps commented 2 years ago

in 3i database: Aceratagallia humilis Oman, 1933 is an original combination for both species and nominotipical susbspecies: Aceratagallia (Aceratagallia) humilis Oman, 1933 and Aceratagallia (Aceratagallia) humilis humilis Oman, 1933 I do not see any contradiction. In TW we have original combination for each protonym. In cases of coordinate names, it should be identical. All other synonymy is automatically moved from species to subspecies, when soft_validation is used.

proceps commented 2 years ago

Species are not assigned to superspecies: See for example Enchenopa supersp. lanceolata

proceps commented 2 years ago

The subsequent combination, which has identicall spelling with the current name of the taxon, is not on the list. That combination has a reference indicating when the current combination is created. Apparantly the name was dropped because it has identical spelling with the current name, but together with the name, the reference was also dropped.

proceps commented 2 years ago

What happens to species distribution. It it migrated?

proceps commented 2 years ago

fossils are not marked as such.

yroskov commented 2 years ago

The subsequent combination, which has identicall spelling with the current name of the taxon...

Such names eliminated in the CoL via TASKS in the checklistbank. If you would like to keep reference with a special comment in the Remarks field, we need to find an appropriate solution at the stage of export from TW in CoLDP. @gdower?

What happens to species distribution. It it migrated?

Distribution data are not exported yet for all SFs (https://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/testing/issues/163#issuecomment-938685188). Seems, the same true for all exports from TW.

fossils are not marked as such

I guess, it is 3i data specific issue. SFs species have "extinct" flag. @gdower?

yroskov commented 2 years ago

Species are not assigned to superspecies

Unfortunately, it is another known but unresolved yet bug. As a shortcut solution, I have eliminated superspecies/species aggregates as a rank in the CoL.

yroskov commented 2 years ago

Aceratagallia humilis Oman, 1933 is an original combination for both species and nominotipical susbspecies: Aceratagallia (Aceratagallia) humilis Oman, 1933 and Aceratagallia (Aceratagallia) humilis humilis Oman, 1933 I do not see any contradiction. In TW we have original combination for each protonym. In cases of coordinate names, it should be identical. All other synonymy is automatically moved from species to subspecies, when soft_validation is used.

Such approach has no sense in the CoL, because synonymy in the taxonomic checklist is forming species as a taxonomic concepts. Aceratagallia humilis humilis, Aceratagallia humilis alvarana and Aceratagallia humilis interior are different subsets of Aceratagallia humilis. We are expecting that synonymy in CoL reflects taxa, but not formal nomenclatural relationships between names.

proceps commented 2 years ago

I mentioned many times, that treating combinations (including original combination) as synonym is incorrect according to ICZN. Also it is incorrect referring to original combination as basionym. It completely distorts the concept.

yroskov commented 2 years ago

In the case of the taxonomic checklist, both synonyms and combinations are "semantic synonyms" which reflects a taxonomic concept.

treating combinations (including original combination) as synonym is incorrect according to ICZN. Also it is incorrect referring to original combination as basionym. It completely distorts the concept.

@mdoering, could you please have a look this Dmitry's comment. Does checklistnbank software accommodate what Dmitry stated on behalf of ICZN?

proceps commented 2 years ago

I do not see any "semantic" on the website. What I can see is completerly new terminology poroposed.

mdoering commented 2 years ago

As you all know we don't follow ICZN or ICNafp for both nomenclatural and taxonomic status, but instead want a "unified" view across all codes and therefore have settled on new terminology instead of overloading existing one.

Taxonomic status values are based on existing COL values that existed for a long time and mostly also correspond to recommended DwC values: http://api.catalogueoflife.org/vocab/taxonomicstatus The only exception there is "ambiguous synonym" which I sometimes doubt is very useful and might just be collapsed with plain "synonym".

Nomenclatural status values are here, with translations to zoology and botany as the main codes: http://api.catalogueoflife.org/vocab/nomstatus

We should show these code specific values on the portal pages I suppose. @thomasstjerne do we actually do on the portal and CLB this in case the code is given?

As for the terminology of "synonyms" we have discussed this many times in different places. I think "Synonyms and combinations" as we have it now makes sense and should be agreeable?

Basionym there was an endless discussion whether this should be "original name" like in DwC. It is known to most zoologists and I don't see much ambiguity or overloading here really, thats why we opted to keep basionym.

Providing labels similar to those defined in the codes but having completely different meaning would be a constant source of confusion.

What case would that be? It is exactly what we try to avoid. With the exception of "synonym" which I still think is common to also taxonomists in zoology as it never showed up as a problem in 20 years of GBIF, TDWG TCS, ontologies & Darwin Core. ITIS and WoRMS as a foundation for COL have it, but WoRMS calls them Synonymised names now: http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=248562

yroskov commented 2 years ago

Revisiting "decisions" after fixes https://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/testing/issues/184#issuecomment-1055567444

TASKS 2022-03-04 image

2022-03-04, Comment after talk to Dmitry: original combination should be linked as CoL synonym to the type subspecies (not to the parent species). Example: Synonym Accepted
Batracomorphus dirke Linnavuori & Quartau, 1975 Batracomorphus (Batracomorphus) dirke Linnavuori & Quartau, 1975
Batracomorphus dirke Linnavuori & Quartau, 1975 Batracomorphus (Batracomorphus) dirke dirke Linnavuori & Quartau, 1975

Whereas in botany, it's different: in the same case, original combination should be linked as CoL synonym to the species (not to the type subspecies child).

yroskov commented 2 years ago

2022-08-29: NEW EXPORT by GO with updated TW exporter (resolved "looped synonymy in type subspecies"; distribution added) Imported on PROD: https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/2317/classification

@gdower & @proceps, all these names are in Parent Id Invalid report https://www.checklistbank.org/catalogue/3/dataset/2317/workbench?facet=rank&facet=issue&facet=status&facet=nomStatus&facet=nameType&facet=field&facet=authorship&facet=authorshipYear&facet=extinct&facet=environment&facet=origin&issue=parent%20id%20invalid&limit=100&offset=0 and in Parent Species Missing report https://www.checklistbank.org/catalogue/3/dataset/2317/workbench?facet=rank&facet=issue&facet=status&facet=nomStatus&facet=nameType&facet=field&facet=authorship&facet=authorshipYear&facet=extinct&facet=environment&facet=origin&issue=parent%20species%20missing&limit=100&offset=0

= infraoder Blattoprosbolomorpha established as a sector 2022-09-02

ID Decision Status scientificName Authorship Accepted Rank Classification
  752802   accepted Bubalopa iguaque Flórez-Valencia & Evangelista de Souza, 2021   species Darninae>Hyphinoini>Bubalopa
  752802   accepted Bubalopa iguaque Flórez-Valencia & Evangelista de Souza, 2021   species Darninae>Hyphinoini>Bubalopa
  757475   accepted Eurhadina (Singhardina) amacularis Zhang & Huang, 2022   species Typhlocybini>Eurhadina>Eurhadina (Singhardina)
  757475   accepted Eurhadina (Singhardina) amacularis Zhang & Huang, 2022   species Typhlocybini>Eurhadina>Eurhadina (Singhardina)
  753244   accepted Eurhadina (Singhardina) dissimilis Zhang & Huang, 2021   species Typhlocybini>Eurhadina>Eurhadina (Singhardina)
  753244   accepted Eurhadina (Singhardina) dissimilis Zhang & Huang, 2021   species Typhlocybini>Eurhadina>Eurhadina (Singhardina)
  757473   accepted Eurhadina (Singhardina) scamba Zhang & Huang, 2022   species Typhlocybini>Eurhadina>Eurhadina (Singhardina)
  757473   accepted Eurhadina (Singhardina) scamba Zhang & Huang, 2022   species Typhlocybini>Eurhadina>Eurhadina (Singhardina)

Resolve 2022-09-02: image

Synced 2022-09-02

proceps commented 2 years ago

Metadata are ok. Distribution seems to be exported correctly. image of the fossil sectors, you can take Blattoprosbolomorpha; Prosbolomorpha; Prosbolopsemorpha

yroskov commented 2 years ago

Thanks!

So, @gdower, remaining issue is/are only(!) 20 subspecies in the tree root. It's not clear why it was happened. Dmitry confirmed that all look fine in TW with these subspecies. At least, they have OTUs.

proceps commented 2 years ago

@mdoering There are two cases of strange synonymy reported in GBIF Global Checklist:

  1. Neoaliturus guttulatus. A valid name in CoL but marked as a synonym in GBIF https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6S79V https://www.gbif.org/species/2048871
  2. Cicadula frontalis. A valid name in CoL but a synonym in GBIF https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/V7B4 https://www.gbif.org/species/11335628

Both are common European species. I got a request from people working in European collection asking why are those incorrectly treated by GBIF. In both cases the species get link to some other species as a homotypic synonym, but if you look, in both cases the name has different author string. Something have to be done on the data migration, so that the data coming form CoL get higher weight and not get replaced with some obscure datasets. I tried to trace for a source of confusion. And I could not.

mdoering commented 1 year ago

This is odd indeed and not immediately obvious why that is.

N. guttulatus was also accepted in the November 21 version of COL that was used to build the GBIF backbone: https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/2351/taxon/6S79V

TAXREF is cited as the primary source for the name in the backbone, not COL which is weird, but that also claims the name is accepted: https://www.gbif.org/species/161540641

The backbone species page has a warning Conflicting basionym combination, I suspect this is the source for the problem. Just both 3i and TAXREF do not list any "basionym".

From the build logs I can see it was indeed forced (wrongly) to be a synonym because of "homotypic grouping":

Consolidating basionym group with HOMOTYPIC_SYNONYM primary usage Jassus guttulata (Stål, 1862): Jassus guttulata (Stål, 1862); Neoaliturus guttulatus (Kirschbaum, 1868)
Convert SPECIES Neoaliturus guttulatus (Kirschbaum, 1868) [5299693] into a HOMOTYPIC_SYNONYM of SPECIES Paracarinolidia guttulata (Stål, 1862) [2038349]
Also convert descendant SPECIES Neoaliturus guttulatus (Kirschbaum, 1868) [5299693] into a synonym of SPECIES Paracarinolidia guttulata (Stål, 1862) [2038349]

Because of Jassus guttulata it now becomes a synonym of Paracarinolidia guttulata (Stål, 1862).

The source for this seems to be FaunaEuropaea which indeed lists Jassus guttulatus Kirschbaum, 1868 as the basionym of Neoaliturus guttulatus (Kirschbaum, 1868): https://www.gbif.org/species/123296966

For the next build I will prevend that specific grouping.

mdoering commented 1 year ago

Cicadula frontalis is listed as many ambiguous synonyms in COL at the time we build the backbone: https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/2351/names?facet=rank&facet=issue&facet=status&facet=nomStatus&facet=nameType&facet=field&facet=authorship&facet=authorshipYear&facet=extinct&facet=environment&facet=origin&limit=50&offset=0&q=Cicadula%20frontalis%20&sortBy=taxonomic

https://www.gbif.org/species/184030962

That must have been the cause in that case.

proceps commented 1 year ago

@mdoering The key factor in all those case is the author string. In zoology, the authorship does not change when a new combination is created. There is also a factor of homonymy. I would estimate, that up to 5% of the names will have a homonym, listed as synonym of another name. This is in my upderstanding the problem with with interpritations in both cases. For zoological names you can more or less safly synonymize the name which have the same author and year strings. So guttulata (Stål, 1862) and guttulatus (Kirschbaum, 1868) could never be treated as homotypic synonyms. In plants situation is somewhat different, the author string changes when the species is moved from one genus to another.

mdoering commented 1 year ago

Yes, thats clear. It is an implementation problem when integrating the sources (aka backbone build) coupled with an issue of false data (see FaEu above).

proceps commented 1 year ago

@mdoering Each species comming from 3i has a basionym associated with the name. Please see the examples I provided (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6S79V). May be those get lost when converted to GBIF backbone? But the real problem is homonymy that is involved. Jassus guttulatus Kirschbaum is a basionym of of Neoaliturus guttulatus. There is also Jassus guttulata (Stål, 1862) which is one of the subsequent combinations of Paracarinolidia guttulata (Stål, 1862), completely unrelated species. I can see, if the script does not take the author and year into accout, both Jassus guttulatus Kirschbaum and Jassus guttulata Stal could be mixed, and this will bring unexpected synonymy.

yroskov commented 1 year ago

3i Auchenorrhyncha 2022-10-19 (imported by GO)

ISSUES image

TASKS image

image

@mdoering & @gdower, this is a consistent now [frontend or backend?] problem which appeared in CLB after September release. I have reported it with few Species Files. Geoff mentioned that there are no duplicated entries in the database. But we have them in the CLB report.

image

@mdoering & @gdower, even more curious case: identical synonyms names with identical IDs linked to the same accepted species listed in this report. Something seriously wrong with reports on duplicates in CLB.

Resolved 2022-10-19: image

Synced 2022-10-20

yroskov commented 1 year ago

3i Auchenorrhyncha 2022-10-19; re-imported 2022-11-16 with fixed 24 subspecies

TASKS

image

Resolved 2022-11-16:

image

Synced 2022-11-16

yroskov commented 1 year ago

3i Auchenorrhyncha of 0.28.1 / 2022-11-22; imported 2022-11-22 with fixed extinct flag (GO: plus, with a draft of types and species interactions)

TASKS image

@gdower, do you think, this report works correctly?
= NO ACTION until report will be confirmed or resolved

Example: image

Resolved 2022-11-22: image

Resolved 2022-12-02: image

Synced 2022-12-02

yroskov commented 1 year ago

3i Auchenorrhyncha of 0.28.1 / 2023-01-03; imported 2023-01-04 from Geoff's laptop

TASKS

image

Resolved 2023-01-05: image

Synced 2023-01-05

gdower commented 1 year ago

For the names with the same rank and authorships in that report, it's because there is more than 1 OTU:

image

ID decision status rank label scientificName authorship genus specificEpithet infraspecificEpithet accepted classification
13557   ACCEPTED SUBFAMILY Biturritiinae Metcalf, 1951 Biturritiinae Metcalf, 1951         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Aetalionidae
13556 BLOCK ACCEPTED SUBFAMILY Biturritiinae Metcalf, 1951 Biturritiinae Metcalf, 1951         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Aetalionidae
48813 BLOCK ACCEPTED SUBFAMILY Centronodinae Deitz, 1975 Centronodinae Deitz, 1975         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Membracidae
48814   ACCEPTED SUBFAMILY Centronodinae Deitz, 1975 Centronodinae Deitz, 1975         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Membracidae
320   ACCEPTED INFRAORDER Cicadomorpha Evans, 1946 Cicadomorpha Evans, 1946         Auchenorrhyncha
55442   ACCEPTED GENUS Cicadomorpha Martynov, 1927 Cicadomorpha Martynov, 1927         Auchenorrhyncha > Prosbolomorpha > Palaeontinoidea > Palaeontinidae > Palaeontininae
51803 BLOCK ACCEPTED SUBFAMILY Endoiastinae Deitz & Dietrich, 1993 Endoiastinae Deitz & Dietrich, 1993         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Membracidae
51802   ACCEPTED SUBFAMILY Endoiastinae Deitz & Dietrich, 1993 Endoiastinae Deitz & Dietrich, 1993         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Membracidae
70998   ACCEPTED GENUS Flatina Melichar, 1902 Flatina Melichar, 1902         Auchenorrhyncha > Fulgoromorpha > Fulgoroidea > Flatidae
615990   ACCEPTED SUBTRIBE Flatina Spinola, 1839 Flatina Spinola, 1839         Auchenorrhyncha > Fulgoromorpha > Fulgoroidea > Flatidae > Flatinae > Flatini
21330 BLOCK ACCEPTED GENUS Hardya Edwards, 1922 Hardya Edwards, 1922         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Cicadellidae > Deltocephalinae > Cicadulini
21339   ACCEPTED GENUS Hardya Edwards, 1922 Hardya Edwards, 1922         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Cicadellidae > Deltocephalinae > Cicadulini
55117 BLOCK ACCEPTED GENUS Lycoderes Germar, 1835 Lycoderes Germar, 1835         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Membracidae > Stegaspidinae > Stegaspidini
55118   ACCEPTED GENUS Lycoderes Germar, 1835 Lycoderes Germar, 1835         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Membracidae > Stegaspidinae > Stegaspidini
26580   ACCEPTED GENUS Macrosteles Fieber, 1866 Macrosteles Fieber, 1866         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Cicadellidae > Deltocephalinae > Macrostelini
26571 BLOCK ACCEPTED GENUS Macrosteles Fieber, 1866 Macrosteles Fieber, 1866         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Cicadellidae > Deltocephalinae > Macrostelini
55335 BLOCK ACCEPTED SUBFAMILY Myerslopiinae Evans, 1957 Myerslopiinae Evans, 1957         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Myerslopiidae
55343   ACCEPTED SUBFAMILY Myerslopiinae Evans, 1957 Myerslopiinae Evans, 1957         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Myerslopiidae
53251   ACCEPTED SUBFAMILY Nicomiinae Haupt, 1929 Nicomiinae Haupt, 1929         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Membracidae
53250 BLOCK ACCEPTED SUBFAMILY Nicomiinae Haupt, 1929 Nicomiinae Haupt, 1929         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Membracidae
55405   ACCEPTED GENUS Prosbolomorpha Riek, 1974 Prosbolomorpha Riek, 1974         Auchenorrhyncha > Prosbolomorpha > Palaeontinoidea > Dunstaniidae
615627   ACCEPTED INFRAORDER Prosbolomorpha Popov, 1980 Prosbolomorpha Popov, 1980         Auchenorrhyncha
646797 BLOCK ACCEPTED GENUS Scaphytopius Ball, 1931 Scaphytopius Ball, 1931         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Cicadellidae > Deltocephalinae > Scaphytopiini
31179   ACCEPTED GENUS Scaphytopius Ball, 1931 Scaphytopius Ball, 1931         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Membracoidea > Cicadellidae > Deltocephalinae > Scaphytopiini
3892   ACCEPTED GENUS Synavea Lallemand, 1955 Synavea Lallemand, 1955         Auchenorrhyncha > Cicadomorpha > Cercopoidea > Cercopidae > Cercopinae > Rhinaulacini > Liternina
65623 UPDATE ACCEPTED GENUS Synavea Emeljanov, 1995 Synavea Emeljanov, 1995         Auchenorrhyncha > Fulgoromorpha > Fulgoroidea > Derbidae > Otiocerinae > Aquaeliciini

@proceps, are the extra OTUs intentional?

proceps commented 1 year ago

Some intentional. Some exists just because we do not have a mechanism to delete duplicate OTU names. I always told, that CoL migration should be based on nomenclature, not OTUs, there would be no need to resolve duplicate OTUs and and missing TaxonNames, which do not have OTUs

mjy commented 1 year ago

We will ultimately need to start planning to resolve this properly on TW side, by building explicit sets of OTUs to send to the CoL, rather than using TaxonName proxy. It will take some time to work out, but it then we will truly reflect the core mission of the CoL, "these are the species".

yroskov commented 1 year ago

Re-synced 2023-01-06 (extinct flag & version fixed)

yroskov commented 1 year ago

3i Auchenorrhyncha of 0.28.1 / 2023-02-02; imported 2023-02-02 from Geoff's laptop

image

TASKS

image

Resolved 2023-02-03:

image

Synced 2023-02-03

yroskov commented 1 year ago

3i Auchenorrhyncha of 0.30.3 / 2023-03-06; imported 2023-03-06 from Geoff's laptop

image

ISSUES assessed 2023-03-08

image

TASKS

image

@proceps & @gdower, curious case, I did find Changeondelphax velitchkovskyi (Melichar, 1913) twice in CLB: https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/2317/classification?taxonKey=61207. Differences between records are: one has distribution data, another has no them; slightly different list of references.
One more species with double appearance: Rosenus pantherinus (Kusnezov, 1929)

(These cases appear in the report SYN-SYN species (different accepted(?!), same authors)

Resolved 2023-03-08:

image

Synced 2023-03-08

yroskov commented 1 year ago

3i Auchenorrhyncha of 0.32.2 / 2023-04-12; imported 2023-04-12 from Geoff's laptop

image

ISSUES assessed 2023-04-14

image

TASKS

image

After deletion of broken decisions: image

Resolved 2023-04-17:

image

Synced 2023-04-17

yroskov commented 1 year ago

https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/2317/duplicates?authorshipDifferent=false&category=binomial&limit=500&minSize=2&mode=STRICT&offset=0&status=accepted

image

Geoff pointed to two OTUs: image

@proceps, do you have a special reason to establist two OTUs with these 23 species?