Chelus orinocoensis and Chelus orinocensis are both names for one taxon and should not both be accepted

[gbif-portal]

Chelus orinocoensis and Chelus orinocensis are both names for one taxon and should not both be accepted

---

Github user: @Squitoense User: See in registry - Send email System: Chrome 112.0.0 / Windows 10.0.0 Referer: https://www.gbif.org/species/11790906 Window size: width 1920 - height 1057 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]

To the person who made query: just to clarify, i have nothing to do with gbif except also another end user reading these many open issues, and rolling my eyes about what 'under review' actually means.

The original paper was easy to find, and consistently uses Chelus orinocensis

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055790320300956?via%3Dihub#preview-section-snippets

The description seems valid, with sp. nov., text diagnosis, mention of types deposited, etc. It's registered same way in zoobank https://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/fefa26bc-dd7b-4855-bf56-c65f7e6ef772 In the preferred catalog many schemes it's spelt the same. Including the "source" for genus in gbif. http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/search?search=Chelus+orinocensis&submit=Search

Of course, the name derived from 'of the River Orinoco', so it could argued the name should correctly be "orinocoensis" There's at least a paper by Iverson 2022 "A review of Chelonian type specimens (order Testudines)" who published in a peer reviewed jounal with the alternative spelling "orinocoensis". But says nothing on his alternative use being a proposed formal emendation or such - does anyone?

But to me, ICZN following from "33.2" emendations in later "35.2: Spellings that must be corrected (incorrect original spellings)" in part reads "Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors." https://code.iczn.org/formation-and-treatment-of-names/article-33-subsequent-spellings/?frame=1

So, unless i'm missing something vital there's an original spelling and a variant used in one later paper without any intentional statement of meaning to be a deliberate replacement, nor would be supported by ICZN guidelines on subsequent emendments.

[Squitoense]

I am not sure if I understand you correctly. I do understand that one of the names is a spelling variant. In gbif both names have the status "Accepted" and I believe that this should not be the case. One of the names should be a "Spelling Variant" or a "homotypic Synonym". Regarding you rolling your eyes over that many open issues under review. I am actually not sure how to properly report these issues I find with nomenclature. Do you have a suggestion how nomenclatural issues should best be reported?

[sjl197]

I also believe "should not be the case", Still inline with my past thoughts about which is "Taxonomically valid" see further ICZN link: articles 32.3/32.3 https://code.iczn.org/formation-and-treatment-of-names/article-32-original-spellings/?frame=1

About me rolling eyes - well i'm not sure they do want anyone reporting such issues. My meaning was that I've encountered indifference. One way i did not yet try is asking via this group/link below, nor yet searching deeply in posts there https://discourse.gbif.org/latest?order=activity

[MattBlissett]

Thank you for the feedback. This is the best place for it, either by created new issues directly or using the feedback button on GBIF.org.

The "Under Review" label is automatically applied to all issues made through the GBIF.org website. Since the label has been removed, that shows we recognize the issue is valid — not spam, not quickly solved, not an FAQ item, etc.

My colleague applied the "Backbone" label, which tags this issue as relevant for the GBIF Backbone Taxonomy. This is the synthetic classification generated from various sources used to index all the occurrence records in GBIF.org. We produce a new backbone every few months, and most issues with the "Backbone" label will be reviewed in detail then.

The main component of the GBIF Backbone Taxonomy is the Catalogue of Life. Their annual release should come later this month, and we will start work on the new backbone soon after.