Species geographic information is limited

[efcaguab]

Currently species from which to download taxonomic information is determined by filtering those in which fishbase has a record of a (museum) specimen from a particular country. Because of that several species are missing from timor and we currently accept species that have specimens recorded in Indonesia as well. However, some species are still missed and there might be a few false positives as well.

An ideal approach would be to consult occurrence databases like GBIF instead of FishBase to determine wether a species should be included in our length-weight relationship analysis.

[langbart]

@efcaguab Do you think something like that could be a good starting point?

species <- c('Carcharodon carcharias') # just an example

gbif_data <- rgbif::occ_data(
  scientificName = species,
  hasCoordinate = TRUE,
  limit = 20000,
  decimalLatitude = "-20, 5",
  decimalLongitude = "105, 150"
)  

dplyr::select(gbif_data$data, individualCount,occurrenceStatus,stateProvince)

[efcaguab]

something like that would be good!

But the reason I created issues, rather than pointing it out earlier is because I think other work has higher priority. I think it works well enough for us as it is now and we can improve this (and the shark/tuna/rays issue) later down the track.

On 31/07/2021, at 00:54, langbart @.***> wrote:

 Do you think something like that could be a good starting point?

`species <- c('Carcharodon carcharias')

gbif_data <- rgbif::occ_data( scientificName = species, hasCoordinate = TRUE, limit = 20000, decimalLatitude = "-20, 5", decimalLongitude = "105, 150" )

dplyr::select(gbif_data$data, individualCount,occurrenceStatus,stateProvince) `

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.