TaxonGroup facet options do not use secondary group

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Create 2 taxon groups (we will call them Fish and Monkeys for this example) 
and one species (FishMonkey) that occurs in both groups, respectively.
2. Create a record with the species
3. Go to the Advanced Review to view your FishMonkey.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Note that you will only see the primary group (Fish) in the Species Group facet.

This has a few potential solutions and implications:
1. Add secondary groups to the option, allowing a record to be counted once for 
each group it is a member of
   a. This means that for the above example the facet would have: Fish (1) and Monkeys (1) which could be misleading
   b. Selecting either of the groups will show the FishMonkey record, but if there is a difference between Monkeys->FishMonkey and Fish->FishMonkey, this will be incorrect.
2. Add another facet for selecting secondary group
   a. This could be misleading for reason 1a and 1b as well.
   b. "Primary" and "Secondary" group may be confusing for users.
3. Make the TaxonGroup part of the species selection and add it to each 
Sighting.
   a. This has implications for legacy sites

Original issue reported on code.google.com by stepha...@gaiaresources.com.au on 4 Sep 2012 at 8:24

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I favour option 1 because it is most closely aligned to user logic (despite the 
potential to be misleading in respect to total count across groups). ie. as a 
user I am  likely to say "show me all of the records in the monkey group". This 
will (and of course should, include the FishMonkey record). If I chose to 
display all records in both the Fish group and the Monkey group it should still 
include only one occurrence of the FishMonkey record as it is only the one 
record.

Option 2 would make using the facets unwieldy and confusing as many group names 
could easily be duplicated across the primary and secondary groups. It is 
definitely desirable to list all groups (primary and secondary) against which a 
record (ie. species) is associated so that I can filter the result set by any 
of those group associations, but all groups should be listed in a single 
"groups" facet.

Option 3 is highly undesirable as it would require users to select a group 
every time they enter a record, which in most cases would be an annoying and 
superfluous extra step in the form entry.

Original comment by CoolDa...@gmail.com on 5 Sep 2012 at 1:34