search

gbif / backbone-feedback

2 stars 0 forks source link

Phlaeopora = Phloeopora #106

Open gbif-portal opened 1 year ago

gbif-portal commented 1 year ago

Phlaeopora = Phloeopora

"Phlaeopora" (1040860) is a misspelling of "Phloeopora" (1041441) and should be merged with the latter name (including the two species currently in Phlaeopora, which are already present in Phloeopora).

Github user: @spilomallynae User: See in registry - Send email System: Firefox 114.0.0 / Windows 10.0.0 Referer: https://www.gbif.org/species/1040860 Window size: width 1294 - height 1321 API log&_a=(columns:!(_source),filters:!(),index:'3390a910-fcda-11ea-a9ab-4375f2a9d11c',interval:auto,query:(language:kuery,query:''),sort:!())) Site log&_a=(columns:!(_source),filters:!(),index:'5c73f360-fce3-11ea-a9ab-4375f2a9d11c',interval:auto,query:(language:kuery,query:''),sort:!())) System health at time of feedback: OPERATIONAL

ktotsum commented 1 year ago

@DaveNicolson I have contacted the ITIS team on this issue.

DaveNicolson commented 1 year ago

To some degree, we are working at cross-purposes here... Because of the vast scope of ITIS, we are typically working on taxonomic "chunks", rather than responding reactively to issues with individual names scattered through the database (although partner needs do factor strongly in our priorities, and we do make priority tweaks when it is necessary). This may change when we move to the online Taxonomic Workbench (now in testing), as individual tweaks will be much easier with that tool, but for the moment ITIS will stay focused on larger taxonomic chunks (I am suggesting we correct it during late-stage testing of the platform, so I hope we will have it resolved later in the year).

Users of data from ITIS are encouraged to note the "Data Quality Indicators" in the Taxonomy and Nomenclature section at the top of each page in ITIS (for a name of genus rank or higher) give an indication of the currency and completeness of a group. In the case of Phlaeopora (Taxonomic Serial No.: 186549), that error (and the 2 species names under it) are completely unverified/untouched data inherited from the NODC data set that was a precursor to ITIS, so they should be considered potentially problematic right from the start. I'm not sure if there is anything GBIF can do to highlight this for its users looking at data from ITIS...