Open mfrasca opened 5 years ago
but this one contains no information about hybrids!
I think that hybrid information is relevant enough, missing it: no go.
Hello @mfrasca GBIF taxonomy includes hybrids, where this information is available from sources: http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/match?name=Pilosella%20officinarum%20x%20Pilosella%20piloselloides%20subsp.%20bauhinii
When using the species match API, you should make another call to the species API with the usageKey to get all information: http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/9645296
Cheers, Thomas Stjernegaard
Hi @mfrasca,
Nothotaxa work where we have the data, but we usually follow the Catalogue of Life which unfortunately says it's not a hybrid. You can see the three checklists we see the name (×) Brassocattleya arauji in, including TPL and IPNI showing hybrids. The website runs from the public APIs, so it would be possible to use GBIF's species match API, retrieve the …/related
names, then choose the TPL one where it exists (i.e. look for a name from dataset d9a4eedb-e985-4456-ad46-3df8472e00e8
). GBIF's matching API only runs against the GBIF backbone, though others have requested that we allow matching to the checklists we index, and we plan to do this.
Also, I think the export of TPL we have could be improved. It doesn't have genus or family names, and I don't think most hybrid names are formatted correctly.
×Brassocattleya fregoniana we have as a hybrid, since it's not in the Catalogue of Life. (nameType=HYBRID
is only for hybrid formulae, I think you just need to see the ×
for nothotaxa.)
We don't have any intermediate ranks.
If testing the matching API, provide kingdom=Plantae
to avoid possible homonyms in other kingdoms.
You had one other comment in your email, which I hope you don't mind me quoting here:
I don't find the example, and I might be confused with a different source, but I thought you sometimes provide year of publication, and again not as a separate field.
I think you've probably read our API documentation which links to some zoological examples. The year is part of the standard format for a zoological name: Puma Jardine, 1834 — or else it was the publishedIn
field on any name where we have it.
In case it's useful for assessing its suitability, you can download the GBIF backbone checklist as a Darwin Core archive (zipped TSVs) from https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei , and filter for kingdom=6
(Plantae).
We are working on better integration with the Catalogue of Life, and this is likely to include a new version of our checklist API. I don't think there are any new issues here, but I'll tag @mdoering (the developer for GBIF and CoL) anyway.
Thanks!
what a huge amount of information! thank you warmly!
publishedIn
, sometimes as part of the scientificName
and authorship
, but the two things seem to be unrelated.×
before a genus epithet while looking for a species, but not in the genus epithet when checking the genus itself. I would like to consider the entry for the genus authoritative for the genus epithet.×
prefix in your database. anyhow, I would rather have an explicit field telling me it's a hybrid name.Hi @mfrasca -
TPL - something to note is that TPL is not updated very often (current Version 1.1 in September 2013 - see the details on the home page).
Hi @mfrasca, we do dedicate a property notho
to Names in both GBIF and the upcoming CoL+ Clearinghouse. But It is well hidden in GBBIF I can see, we do not expose it in the "NameUsage" aka taxon/species, just in its "Name":
https://api.gbif.org/v1/species/3651890/name
https://api.gbif.org/v1/species/3651890
hallo @mdoering and @MattBlissett! still on nothotaxa: some time ago I had merged genus information from ars-grin with the default database from Bauble. I collected 26924 genus epithets, of which 547 marked as nothotaxa. I just checked my merged collection of genus epithets against ipni through kew's 'reconciliation'. 'reconciliation' gives a reply on 25702 epithets (of 26924), it reports 121 nothotaxa, none of them is in my initial 547 set (so I need to review). in particular, just to spotlight something which is obviously incorrect, only 40 genera in the Orchidaceae family have a hybrid marker in your database, while I have 472 marked thus.
you can check my list from bauble/plugins/plants/default/genus.txt and then grep '"x .*345' genus.txt
. (345 is the id
of family Orchidaceae).
(edited the above, I had made a couple of mistakes matching the two lists)
@tmyersdn writes in #440:
I had a look and I think that the structure of the result is a lot more usable than results from EOL. http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/match?verbose=false&name=Abies%20argentea
pity the result contains no intermediate taxonomic information between family and genus (see Vanda where I expect some reference to Subfamilia Epidendroideae, Tribus Vandeae, Subtribus Aeridinae or Sterculiaceae where I expect some reference to Sterculioideae) nor between genus and species (see Rhododendron farrerae: subgenus Azaleastrum, sectio Tsutsusi, subsectio Brachycalyx)