search

gbif / backbone-feedback

1 stars 0 forks source link

Cyperus setiger/setigerus #114

Open gbif-portal opened 1 year ago

gbif-portal commented 1 year ago

Cyperus setiger/setigerus

There are two orthographic variants presented apart as "species" that need merging https://www.gbif.org/species/10685397 https://www.gbif.org/species/2716036

The technically correct spelling would be "setiger"

User: See in registry - Send email System: Safari 16.3.0 / Mac OS X 10.15.7 Referer: https://www.gbif.org/species/2716036 Window size: width 1181 - height 671 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

sjl197 commented 1 year ago

I submitted the above through the system.

I've since got a private email from Dr. R. Govaerts. Paraphrased as - the original setigerus should be maintained. Else - at a the last botanical conference the proposal to change to setiger was defeated

POWO -> CoL. "setigerus"

Having both variants recognised by gbif is of course desirable, but adds confusion when presented as apparent equals. This aspect to me is something that can still be investigated on gbif and ideally improved here.

The now supposedly rejected "setiger" is still presented as seeming more authoritative, ie. "source: The World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP)". But perhaps that just something that updates of sources to feed through on own update.