Implementation of new management classification in Vertebrata (Bailly & al., 2022).

[yroskov]

TG meeting 2022-03-02, action point: Vertebrata group, upload recommended classification to ChecklistBank.

2022-03-09, ZOOM meeting with @NicBailly.

Final version: COL_Vertebrata_Classification_v5_20220105_sentTG.xlsx

Phylum Chordata |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | --   | Subphylum Cephalochordata |   |   |   |   |   |   |     | Subphylum Tunicata (=Urochordata) |   |   |   |   |   |   |     | Subphylum Vertebrata (= Craniata) |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   | Infraphylum Agnatha |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |   | Superclass Cyclostomi |   |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Myxini |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Petromyzonti |     |   | Infraphylum Gnathostomata |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   | **Parvphylum** Chondrichthyes |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Elasmobranchii |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Subclass Neoselachii   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Holocephali |     |   |   | **Parvphylum** Osteichthyes |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |   | **Gigaclass** Actinopterygii |   |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Cladistii |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Chondrostei |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Holostei |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Subclass Gynglimodi   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Subclass Halecomorphi   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Teleostei |     |   |   |   | **Gigaclass** Sarcopterygii |   |   |   |     |   |   |   |   | Unranked placeholder |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Coelacanthi |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Dipneusti |     |   |   |   |   | Tetrapoda |   | Tetrapoda |     |   |   |   |   |   | Superclass placeholder |   |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Amphibia |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |   | Superclass Amniota |   |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Squamata |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Testudines |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Crocodilia |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Sphenodontia |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Aves |     |   |   |   |   |   |   | Class Mammalia |  

[yroskov]

• [x] ranks Parvphylum & Gigaclass do not exist yet in the CLB (https://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/backend/issues/1120) = FIXED in the code; ranks applied in CLB 2022-03-28

Affected 4 taxa: Parvphylum Chondrichthyes & Parvphylum Osteichthyes; Gigaclass Actinopterygii & Gigaclass Sarcopterygii

2022-03-09: entered as "Unranked".

Correct ranks should be applied after a fix of issue 1120.

[yroskov]

Classification as implemented, 2022-03-09:

(In gigaclass Sarcopterygii two children with a name "Unranked placeholder" were not established; child "Tetrapoda" was established as "Unranked")

[yroskov]

• [x] Spelling of the name Crocodilia/Crocodylia (class) was checked with ReptileDB, and entered as Crocodylia.

[yroskov]

• [ ] Disparities in ranks of attachment points between proposed classification and ReptileDB

• Instead of 4 sectors (orders) with previous classification, CoL now has 34 sectors (suborders, superfamilies & families). Any change in ReptileDB classification will have now critical impact on CoL through broken sectors.

• Rank Order is now completely missing in CoL reptiles.

Bailly, 2022	ReptileDB	Sectors now (children)
Class Squamata	Order Squamata	15 superfamilies and 15 unplaced families
Class Testudines	Order Testudines	2 suborders Cryptodira & Pleurodira
Class Crocodylia	Order Crocodylia	1 suborder Eusuchia
Class Sphenodontia	Order Rhynchocephalia - Suborder Sphenodontida - Family Sphenodontidae	1 family Sphenodontidae

[yroskov]

• [ ] Disparities in ranks of attachment points between proposed classification and FishBase

Bailly, 2022	FishBase of 2018	Sectors now (children)	Assembled without help 2022-03-17
unranked (gigaclass) Actinopterygii with 4 classes	class Actinopterygii	Need @NicBailly assistance	All orders from former class Actinopterygii placed in a root of unranked Actinopterygii
? class Petromyzonti	class Cephalaspidomorphi - order Petromyzontiformes	Need @NicBailly assistance	order Petromyzontiformes placed in class Petromyzonti
class Elasmobranchii	class Elasmobranchii	established 1to1
class Holocephali	class Holocephali	established 1to1
class Myxini	class Myxini	established 1to1
unranked (gigaclass) Sarcopterygii with 2 classes	class Sarcopterygii	Need @NicBailly assistance	3 orders from former class Sarcopterygii placed in unranked Sarcopterygii

[yroskov]

Synced 2022-03-17 for CoL of March 2022

[yroskov]

Email of 2022-05-04

...we did not finalized vertebrate classification in CoL yet. Assignment in the gigaclass Actinopterygii need to be completed. As we agreed, I can do final steps if you send me a spreadsheet with taxa in gigaclass Actinopterygii extended down to FishBase orders. Yours, Yuri

As left unresolved:

[yroskov]

2022-06-20: Because some suborders in Actinopterygii have been raised to order rank now, we cannot easily translate FishBase checklist of Feb 2018 into proposed classification. Solution agreed with Nicolas: delete four empty classes in gigaclass Actinopterygii; all "old" orders remain children of the gigaclass. Implemented.

Classification will stay like that until a new data in CoLDP will be available for CoL - after July 2022(?)

[yroskov]

2022-08-16: Classification of Sarcopterygii is displayed in the tree with an impression of broken hierarchy "class-unranked-superclass-class":

Two ways to resolve the case of "unranked" groups which software cannot handle correctly:

1) use artificial group "Unrankedplaceholder" as a sister to unranked Tetrapoda, a child of Gigaclass Sarcopterygii with two classes Coelacanthi & Dipneusti in it. Exactly as in Nicolas' spreadsheet:

or 2) change rank for Tetrapoda from "unranked" to "megaclass" (ref. to WoRMS 2022-08-16:

Markus prefer to follow 2nd root.

Implemented:

[mdoering]

@yroskov @dhobern is there still work to be done for the (not so) new Vertebrate classification or can we close the issue?

There are missing major ranks in the classification although we have a very rich set of ranks. I feel this is wrong and there should for example be at least regular orders if there are superfamilies and super/mega/gigaclass ranks: See https://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/data/issues/484

On the other hand we miss useful intermediate ranks like superfamilies or suborders for birds: https://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/data/issues/207

[dhobern]

Yes. I'm the main bottleneck now. This week, I'm in all day meetings every day and also have 50 CVs I need to read so it will probably not be until next week.

Donald

Sent from Outlook for Androidhttps://aka.ms/AAb9ysg

---

From: Markus Döring @.> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:24:33 PM To: CatalogueOfLife/testing @.> Cc: Donald Hobern @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [CatalogueOfLife/testing] Implementation of new management classification in Vertebrata (Bailly & al., 2022). (Issue gbif/portal-feedback#186)

@yroskovhttps://github.com/yroskov @dhobernhttps://github.com/dhobern is there still work to be done for the (not so) new Vertebrate classification or can we close the issue?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/testing/issues/186#issuecomment-1713314671, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGHP4ZVJPBGT25PBV5ZA7P3XZ24DDANCNFSM5QKSPSVA. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[NicBailly]

@dhobern @mdoering @yroskov ( and @NicBailly to be forwarded to Tom Orrell) [Also consultations with Peter Uetz are needed for Reptiles, and Dave N. for the other Tetrapoda as they are provided by ITIS].

Topics to confirm and/or answer:

• We can fill up a sorting number to display the taxa in a given order (the one we are all used to from lampreys to mammals), not only the alphabetical order.

• We can uplift the current 3 Chordata subphyla to phylum rank: Cephalochordata, Tunicata, Vertebrata. I have a few references that suggest that already, so it would not be a creation of COL. Decision to be taken.

• If fossils are to be included, there will be major changes in the classification that we can minimize by:

  • Not retaining all nodes generated by old stem-groups that are not extent anymore
  • Working closely group by group with fossil colleagues (was there any progress on that)
  • Doing it progressively, why not starting by Vertebrata.

And sorry to ask the following question again, but I have hard time to know/understand with certainty the answer so far, my bad ;-).

• Question with respect to a simplified classification aimed at public, governmental agencies, etc. non-taxonomists: If we enter a quite extended phylogeny-like classification, potentially with unranked nodes, is there currently (meaning a functionality that is running now on the web and in the exports of COL) a functionality that shows / exports a simplified classification with the 7 so-called Linnean ranks (or a customization, in particular with some subranks, e.g., subclass, suborder, ... )? Depending on the answer, we can take the decision very quickly. If this functionality does not exist yet, I suggest the following:
  • The classification in COL tree should remain simple. For Fishes, a more complete one will be available in WoRMS anyway.
  • Beside the simplified tree, we can propose a file (or files) with a more complete phylogeny-like classification.
  • See what I wrote for FishBase at [https://www.fishbase.ca/Nomenclature/Classification_explanation.php], go to the section Changes in February 2023. I will add files for the next update that users can download.

[mdoering]

... is there currently (meaning a functionality that is running now on the web and in the exports of COL) a functionality that shows / exports a simplified classification with the 7 so-called Linnean ranks (or a customization, in particular with some subranks, e.g., subclass, suborder, ... )?

No there isn't. I don't think there are major obstacles in developing it, but given limited resources I would not think there is any time to implement that this year at least.

Implementation of the ordering of children is also not fully implemented, but this is sth I expect to become available rather quickly as most of it is in place already.

[NicBailly]

Thank you @mdoering for these precisions! @dhobern @yroskov So we should be able to take the decisions quickly now when Donald will have finished what he planned.

[dhobern]

I have python scripts that will do this for any COLDP, regardless of whether it uses Name, Taxon and Synonym or NameUsage, TSV or CSV. It will sort the classification and export any subset of the classification ranks.

Sent from Outlook for Androidhttps://aka.ms/AAb9ysg

---

From: Markus Döring @.> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 7:33:31 PM To: CatalogueOfLife/testing @.> Cc: Donald Hobern @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [CatalogueOfLife/testing] Implementation of new management classification in Vertebrata (Bailly & al., 2022). (Issue gbif/portal-feedback#186)

... is there currently (meaning a functionality that is running now on the web and in the exports of COL) a functionality that shows / exports a simplified classification with the 7 so-called Linnean ranks (or a customization, in particular with some subranks, e.g., subclass, suborder, ... )?

No there isn't. I don't think there are major obstacles in developing it, but given limited resources I would not think there is any time to implement that this year at least.

Implementation of the ordering of children is also not fully implemented, but this is sth I expect to become available rather quickly as most of it is in place already.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/testing/issues/186#issuecomment-1715359784, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGHP4ZT5OMHGGXMWPCXIML3X2AT6XANCNFSM5QKSPSVA. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[dhobern]

I'd like us to get some resolution here. Here is the current classification of Chordata from COL down to family rank:

dataset-267522.txt

I've written some code to filterthis with any subset of ranks. I'll add subsequent comments exploring what we find.

To use the code, put it in a file called subset.py, place it in the same folder as the Chordata tree above and type "python subset.py help" to get instructions. Basically, replace "help" with a series of space-separated integer values in the range 0 (unranked Biota) to 16 (family) to get a subset just for those ranks.

import re
import sys

ranks = [
    "unranked",
    "kingdom",
    "phylum",
    "subphylum",
    "infraphylum",
    "parvphylum",
    "gigaclass",
    "megaclass",
    "superclass",
    "class",
    "subclass",
    "infraclass",
    "order",
    "suborder",
    "infraorder",
    "superfamily",
    "family",
]

subset = [1, 2, 9, 12, 16]
show_help = False

if len(sys.argv) > 1:
    try:
        subset = sorted([int(s) for s in sys.argv[1:]])
        if subset[0] < 0 or subset[-1] >= len(ranks):
            show_help = True
    except:
        show_help = True

if show_help:
    print(f"\nUsage: python {sys.argv[0]} <series of integers in range 0 to {len(ranks) - 1}>\n\nValues:\n")
    for i, s in enumerate(ranks):
        print(f"  {i:>2}: {s.capitalize()}")
    print("")
    exit(1)

labels = [f"[{ranks[i]}]" for i in subset]

pattern = re.compile(r"^ *")
with open("dataset-267522.txt", encoding='utf8', newline='') as f:
    for line in f:
        for l in labels:
            if l in line:
                print(line.rstrip().replace("  ", ". "))
                break

[dhobern]

First, selecting all ranks down from kingdom down to infraclass (python subset.py 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11), we get:

. Animalia [kingdom]
. . Chordata [phylum]
. . . Cephalochordata [subphylum]
. . . . Leptocardii [class]
. . . Tunicata [subphylum]
. . . . Appendicularia [class]
. . . . Ascidiacea Blainville, 1824 [class]
. . . . Thaliacea Van der Haeven, 1850 [class]
. . . Vertebrata [subphylum]
. . . . Agnatha [infraphylum]
. . . . . Cyclostomi [superclass]
. . . . . . Myxini [class]
. . . . . . Petromyzonti [class]
. . . . Gnathostomata [infraphylum]
. . . . . Chondrichthyes [parvphylum]
. . . . . . Elasmobranchii [class]
. . . . . . Holocephali [class]
. . . . . Osteichthyes [parvphylum]
. . . . . . Actinopterygii [gigaclass]
. . . . . . Sarcopterygii [gigaclass]
. . . . . . . Coelacanthi [class]
. . . . . . . Dipneusti [class]
. . . . . . . Tetrapoda [megaclass]
. . . . . . . . Amniota [superclass]
. . . . . . . . . Aves [class]
. . . . . . . . . Crocodylia [class]
. . . . . . . . . Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758 [class]
. . . . . . . . . . Prototheria Gill, 1872 [subclass]
. . . . . . . . . . Theria Parker & Haswell, 1897 [subclass]
. . . . . . . . . . . Eutheria Gill, 1872 [infraclass]
. . . . . . . . . . . Metatheria Huxley, 1880 [infraclass]
. . . . . . . . . Sphenodontia [class]
. . . . . . . . . Squamata [class]
. . . . . . . . . Testudines [class]
. . . . . . . . Amphibia [class]

I think we should certainly make sure that this classification can be accessed (via a comment or link) wherever we display higher chordate classification, but for most purposes the phylogenetic information included seems excessive for a species list.

I'll follow the principle that losing low-information nodes and elevating their children in their place simply removes phylogenetic detail. It does not imply anything we would consider false. However, while we keep a higher node like Gnathostomata, Osteichthyes or Sarcopterygii, Tetrapoda and its children must remain nested underneath them.

In other words, the following would be perfectly valid, especially if we add a suitable sequence for the classes:

Animalia [kingdom]
. Chordata [phylum]
. . Leptocardii [class]
. . Appendicularia [class]
. . Ascidiacea Blainville, 1824 [class]
. . Thaliacea Van der Haeven, 1850 [class]
. . Myxini [class]
. . Petromyzonti [class]
. . Elasmobranchii [class]
. . Holocephali [class]
. . Coelacanthi [class]
. . Dipneusti [class]
. . Aves [class]
. . Crocodylia [class]
. . Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758 [class]
. . Sphenodontia [class]
. . Squamata [class]
. . Testudines [class]
. . Amphibia [class]

Subclasses and infraclasses only appear under Mammalia, so we can leave those as a choice for the mammal GSD to decide.

The ragged diagonal left edge to this view shows clearly that most of the intermediate ranks relate to making sure that tetrapods are shown in a phylogenetically reasonable way.

The three subphyla seem fine and unconfusing to me - I'd keep these the way they are rather than losing Chordata.

The gigaclasses highlight the ray-finned fishes and the lineage that leads to tetrapods, but the children of Actinopterygii are all orders (no classes), so it could easily just be shown as a class. We could then lose Sarcopterygii.

Of the two superclasses, Cyclostomi is effectively a synonym for Agnatha in our classification and Amniota only exists to carve off Amphibia. I suggest we lose this as a displayed rank.

If we make those changes, we get a clearer hierarchy for most users:

Animalia [kingdom]
. Chordata [phylum]
. . Cephalochordata [subphylum]
. . . Leptocardii [class]
. . Tunicata [subphylum]
. . . Appendicularia [class]
. . . Ascidiacea Blainville, 1824 [class]
. . . Thaliacea Van der Haeven, 1850 [class]
. . Vertebrata [subphylum]
. . . Agnatha [infraphylum]
. . . . . Myxini [class]
. . . . . Petromyzonti [class]
. . . Gnathostomata [infraphylum]
. . . . Chondrichthyes [parvphylum]
. . . . . Elasmobranchii [class]
. . . . . Holocephali [class]
. . . . Osteichthyes [parvphylum]
. . . . . . Actinopterygii [class]
. . . . . . Coelacanthi [class]
. . . . . . Dipneusti [class]
. . . . . . Tetrapoda [megaclass]
. . . . . . . Aves [class]
. . . . . . . Crocodylia [class]
. . . . . . . Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758 [class]
. . . . . . . Sphenodontia [class]
. . . . . . . Squamata [class]
. . . . . . . Testudines [class]
. . . . . . . Amphibia [class]

We could lose more ranks and make it simpler. This however seems to me personally to be a reasonable compromise, highlighting only the jawless/jawed, cartilaginous/bony, and ray-finned/coelacanth/lungfish/tetrapod divisions.

@NicBailly @mdoering Thoughts?

[dhobern]

So these would be my suggestions:

1. We add a dataset to CLB that we can reference and that includes just the more phylogenetically complete representation of the Chordata shown above (with however much improvement we want to make via better sequencing).
2. We simplify the version in the COL Checklist to the simpler subset at the end of my last comment, again with better sequencing.
3. We add a displayable remark at least to COL Vertebrata and all its children down to class rank that indicates the phylogeny is simplified and that a fuller version can be viewed at the link for the CLB dataset in bullet 1.

Right now, the sequencing does not affect the display in CLB and COL. I have an open defect on this. Once it is fixed, this view should no longer be alphabetical: https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/55434/classification

We also need a way to attach special remarks to nodes in checklist datasets so these get displayed on relevant views in COL and CLB. I'd like this to be two-fold - an actual information box at the top of the COL taxon page for the taxon in question (e.g. on https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/8V4V3 for Vertebrata) and some kind of clickable or hoverable icon next to nodes in the browse view.

@mdoering Any thoughts on how we could do this?

@mdoering - please also look at that Vertebrata link - are the mysterious Other / Unknown labels on the pie chart (all of which lead to the dodo) an already reported issue?

[mdoering]

1 that works but I am slightly worried we will create sth that will be out of sync with the main project quickly. Keeping 2 places up to date manually is unlikely to work. We could use the new dataset as a source to also sync the vertebrate classification from. But then we need to reattach all sectors - which I guess isnt too bad. At least way less work than keeping 2 datasets updated. In sector settings you can specify which ranks you want to include, so all others would be left out and the tree flattened as you did with your code.

2 simplifying the COL tree I think can be done with the API (maybe even UI) that allows to delete a taxon while attaching all its children to its parent, so nothing gets lost.

3 sounds good. How exactly the comments are added is the question. We have an unstructured remarks field, but that might not be the best solution. Most importantly we'd need to know if this only applies to the management classification taxa which we do not source from a GSD. Those should be stable and we can update them. GSD taxa will not and would need a system like we have for species estimates - which we seem to have forgotten about in the past years. There is also the link attribute which could be used to refer to the phylo version.

[mdoering]

Ive uploaded your classification here and used it as a sector in a test project of mine where I remove a few class ranks. It seems you flexibly want to suppress certain names, not all usages of a given rank? This is also possible via decisions. I think that would work quite nice as it also documents how you get from the full tree to the reduced one in COL.

[dhobern]

Thanks, @mdoering. I agree that there is a risk of drift between a reference phylogenetic classification and the management classification. Decision-based reduction would be fine if it scales well enough.

I need to know from @NicBailly whether the various intermediate rank names are all well-established and fixed for these names. With some small adjustments, we could probably have a list of ranks to exclude in the default view.

Right now, the main challenge is Actinopterygii which is given gigaclass rank (presumably so it looks tidy next to Sarcopterygii which has to be above the rank of class). If Actinopterygii is converted to a class, we would be close to getting this to work simply by suppressing some ranks.

@mdoering Also - please look at the issue I noted above about the Vertebrata pie chart, https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/8V4V3 - lots of dead links from it.

[mdoering]

There is nothing wrong in using ignore decisions - we use that in the COL checklists all over in the thousands. So we can definitely simply sync the full phylo data.

[mdoering]

for the portal issue see https://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/portal/issues/205

[dhobern]

Does ignore allow the node to be ignored but the children to be included?

[mdoering]

Does ignore allow the node to be ignored but the children to be included?

Yes. ignore just skips that very name while a block decision blocks the entire subtree. You can chose which one is appropriate.

https://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/backend/blob/master/api/src/main/java/life/catalogue/api/model/EditorialDecision.java#L34

[yroskov]

New version of Chordata classification - see emails from Donald & Markus of 2023-11-27.

Dataset id 279229 in CLB: https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/279229/classification

COL Checklist Chordata Higher Classification, ver 1.0 / 2023-11-27

[yroskov]

Compare Nicolas (Mar 2022) vs Donald (Nov 2023):

Subphyla Cephalochordata & Tunicata = NO CHANGES (classes as lower level)

Subphylum Vertebrata - infraphylum Agnatha = EXCLUDE superclass Cyclostomi = DONE 2024-02-05

Subphylum Vertebrata - infraphylum Gnathostomata - parvphylum Chondrichthyes = NO CHANGES (classes as lower level)

Subphylum Vertebrata - infraphylum Gnathostomata - parvphylum Osteichthyes = EXCLUDE gigaclass Actinopterygii & create class Actinopterygii with FishBase orders as they are in CoL; EXCLUDE gigaclass Sarcopterygii = DONE 2024-02-05

Subphylum Vertebrata - infraphylum Gnathostomata - parvphylum Osteichthyes - gigaclass Sarcopterygii - megaclass Tetrapoda = EXCLUDE superclass Amniota = DONE 2024-02-05

[yroskov]

Important!

There are only 4 synonyms (already flagged as "ambiguous synonyms"): https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/279229/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&status=ambiguous%20synonym

Synonym			Accepted parent
Reptilia	ambiguous synonym of Sphenodontia	unranked	Tetrapoda > Sphenodontia
Reptilia	ambiguous synonym of Squamata	unranked	Tetrapoda > Squamata
Reptilia	ambiguous synonym of Crocodylia	unranked	Tetrapoda > Crocodylia
Reptilia	ambiguous synonym of Testudines	unranked	Tetrapoda > Testudines

Implementation of 2024-02-05: Orders Rhynchocephalia, Squamata, Crocodylia & Testudines established as new sectors from resource id 279229, synced; ReptileDB children taxa re-established as sectors under orders of resource id 279229.

CONCLUSION:

The main problem, new version (as well as Nicolas version) does not match classification used by ReptileDB: http://www.reptile-database.org/db-info/taxa.html#Sau. If we implement this version, we'll have identical names for reptile classes and orders in the CoL, or we will lose order as a rank in all reptile data (like now). = Awaiting reply from Taxonomy Group

[yroskov]

AS A RESULT of implementing classification from the resource id 279229 "COL Checklist Chordata Higher Classification, ver 1.0 / 2023-11-27", rank Class is missing now for all reptiles.

[yroskov]

@dhobern, CoL management classification adjusted now according to the dataset COL Checklist Chordata Higher Classification, ver 1.0 / 2023-11-27 (id 279229, https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/279229/classification).

Results are available at the PREVIEW website https://preview.catalogueoflife.org/

[dhobern]

Thanks - looks great.

[mdoering]

Is there no chance we can place the reptile orders into some class?