camiplata
commented
10 months ago The data of this source is not available on GBIF and the IPT is offline, I contacted GBIF's helpdesk asking for a copy of it. By doing a quick inspection directly on GBIF there are several quality issues like:
- Names with incorrect ranks, example: https://www.gbif.org/species/109239291
- Capitalized specific epithets, example: https://www.gbif.org/species/109239278
- Missing years in the authorship
Other observations
- Low GBIF Backbone overlap partly comes due to the presence of tribes, subtribes on the dataset wich GBIF does not includes on its backbone yet
- This source is rich in synonyms 70% of it, which are missing on COL or GBIF, the valid taxa apparently have a higher match.
This is a promising source, be we need to first find out what may have happened to the data endpoint.
Interestingly COL source for ants is ITIS, and ITIS source is Ohio nomenclator but has not been updated since 2001 and has a very low amount of synonyms.
This definitely needs a revision with the source authors, and probably later with the Taxonomy group
a potential new xcol source for ants: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/ec93a739-1681-4b04-b62f-3a687127a17f
gbif.orggbif.org Formicidae (ants) - AntBase and xBio:D Cyberinfrastructure, The Ohio State University A checklist of the ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the World
10:48 Uhr they have less than 50% overlap with gbif & col 10:48 Uhr its just not in clb yet because its license is unspecified. Get in touch? 10:48 Uhr oh, contact donat 10:51 Uhr its an odd one, there is no data source configured in gbif, just EML. But there is data, so it once existed. Would be good to get in touch I reckon