Two spellings of the platypus genus Ornithor(h)ynchus both resolve in accpeted names

[CecSve]

I assume these two genera refer to the same animal (platypus): https://www.gbif.org/species/8768627 and https://www.gbif.org/species/2433375 - the first is from Zoobank without higher taxonomy but we somehow interpret it to the same higher taxonomy as the latter which we get from CoL. Both names appear as accepted in our portal (backbone). Ideally the former should be interpreted as the latter, since this is the name we get from CoL.

[ManonGros]

@deepreef, perhaps you could help us with this issue? It looks like we have duplicate platypus entries in the GBIF backbone taxonomy because one (https://www.gbif.org/species/181720213) comes from the ZooBank without any higher taxonomy a slightly different spelling. I think that if the higher taxonomy was provided in the dataset for this records, our system would probably not generate duplicates when building the GBIF backbone taxonomy.

I can see that many records in the ZooBank datasets don't have anything above the genus. I understand that updating everything might not be possible, but would it be possible to do it for Ornithorynchus Blumenbach, 1800?

Let us know, thanks!

[deepreef]

Hi Marie,

Many thanks! ZooBank is actually a nomenclatural database, not a taxonomic one. This means that ZooBank does not assert any higher taxonomy for genus-group names (which is why there are no higher taxonomy for genus names). However, I can add a higher taxon to this record, but it needs to be the higher taxon that Blumenbach used in 1800. I can research this, and add it, but it may not be the same higher taxon as what modern taxonomists.

If I can track down the original publication for Blumenbach, 1800, I will see what higher taxon he used, and add it to the record as the parent. I’m just not sure this will solve your problem. Also, just to be clear, you will see what higher taxon Blumenbach placed the genus in, but ZooBank does not (and never will) have an opinion about the “correct” higher taxonomy for any genus name (same applies to the “correct” genus for each species). We just record what the original publications treated the higher taxonomy for each name.

I hope that makes sense!

Aloha,

Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum

1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704

Office: (808) 848-4115; Fax: (808) 847-8252

eMail: @.***

http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html BishopMuseum.org

Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.

From: Marie Grosjean @.> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 2:43 PM To: gbif/portal-feedback @.> Cc: Richard L. Pyle @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [gbif/portal-feedback] Two spellings of the platypus genus Ornithor(h)ynchus both resolve in accpeted names (Issue gbif/backbone-feedback#210)

@deepreef https://github.com/deepreef , perhaps you could help us with this issue? It looks like we have duplicate platypus entries in the GBIF backbone taxonomy because one (https://www.gbif.org/species/181720213) comes from the ZooBank https://www.gbif.org/dataset/c8227bb4-4143-443f-8cb2-51f9576aff14 without any higher taxonomy a slightly different spelling. I think that if the higher taxonomy was provided in the dataset for this records, our system would probably not generate duplicates when building the GBIF backbone taxonomy.

I can see that many records in the ZooBank datasets don't have anything above the genus. I understand that updating everything might not be possible, but would it be possible to do it for Ornithorynchus Blumenbach, 1800?

Let us know, thanks!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/210 , or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDFELZ3L6GYUKYXD3D5CDTVRRAGDANCNFSM52CHJCHA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned. https://github.com/notifications/beacon/ABDFEL7ORKHVWMCJTVRTUTDVRRAGDA5CNFSM52CHJCHKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOIW54JAY.gif Message ID: @. @.> >

[deepreef]

It looks like the publication is not in BHL. Do you happen to have access to a PDF of:

Blumenbach, Johann F. 1800. Über das Schnabelthier (Ornithorhynchus paradoxus) ein neuentdecktes Geschlecht von Säugthieren des fünften Welttheils. Magazin für den Neuesten Zustand der Naturkunde 2: 205-214.

Richard L. Pyle, PhD Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum

1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704

Office: (808) 848-4115; Fax: (808) 847-8252

eMail: @.***

http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html BishopMuseum.org

Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.

From: Marie Grosjean @.> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 2:43 PM To: gbif/portal-feedback @.> Cc: Richard L. Pyle @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [gbif/portal-feedback] Two spellings of the platypus genus Ornithor(h)ynchus both resolve in accpeted names (Issue gbif/backbone-feedback#210)

@deepreef https://github.com/deepreef , perhaps you could help us with this issue? It looks like we have duplicate platypus entries in the GBIF backbone taxonomy because one (https://www.gbif.org/species/181720213) comes from the ZooBank https://www.gbif.org/dataset/c8227bb4-4143-443f-8cb2-51f9576aff14 without any higher taxonomy a slightly different spelling. I think that if the higher taxonomy was provided in the dataset for this records, our system would probably not generate duplicates when building the GBIF backbone taxonomy.

I can see that many records in the ZooBank datasets don't have anything above the genus. I understand that updating everything might not be possible, but would it be possible to do it for Ornithorynchus Blumenbach, 1800?

Let us know, thanks!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/210 , or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDFELZ3L6GYUKYXD3D5CDTVRRAGDANCNFSM52CHJCHA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned. https://github.com/notifications/beacon/ABDFEL7ORKHVWMCJTVRTUTDVRRAGDA5CNFSM52CHJCHKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOIW54JAY.gif Message ID: @. @.> >

[ManonGros]

Thanks @deepreef, I understand that adding the higher taxon might not solve the issue. Many thanks for trying though!

This is what I could find for the publication: https://zs.thulb.uni-jena.de/pdf?mets=https%3A%2F%2Fzs.thulb.uni-jena.de%2Fservlets%2FMCRMETSServlet%2Fjportal_derivate_00124781%2Fmets.xml%3FXSL.Style%3Dpdf&pages=213-222 Will that help?

[deepreef]

Apologies for previously responding via email, rather than within GitHub!

I have consulted with fellow ICZN Commissioner Francisco Welter-Schultes, who has confirmed that the publication you linked is the correct original description for the genus. However, this paper does not assign the genus to a family (only to "Säugethiere", which is mammals). Thus, the ZooBank record is correct, in the sense that it is a Taxonomic Name Usage, not a "Taxon" per se, and thus faithfully represents a name as it is represented within a specific Treatment (in this case, the original Protonym for Ornithorhynchus Blumenbach, 1800).

So in this case, unfortunately, there is nothing to update in the original source record. As an aside, this is an example of why it would be extremely advantageous for the biodiversity data community (including GBIF) to anchor scientific names to Protonyms (original treatments), which would avoid the need to generate multiple records based on different name spellings or classifications. I've had some excellent discussions on this with @mdoering over the years (and especially over the past few days), and I'm hopeful that these sorts of issues will get sorted out in the not-too distant future.

Please let me know if I can help in any other way!