invalid name marked accepted

[gbif-portal]

invalid name marked accepted

Re. https://www.gbif.org/species/7507576, this is an invalid name according to https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=761780

---

User: See in registry System: Firefox 97.0.0 / Linux 0.0.0 Referer: https://www.gbif.org/species/7507576 Window size: width 1280 - height 910 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

[ManonGros]

https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/281

[ahahn-gbif]

3 homonyms (same higher taxonomy):

• Megachile melanopyga Schrottky, 1908 (https://www.gbif.org/species/7507576): what is the source for the "accepted" status of this name?

• Megachile melanopyga Costa, 1863 (https://www.gbif.org/species/7548157): this should be the accepted name (older homonym) (https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=761779) - only marked as "valid" in ITIS, but see the remarks at the bottom

• Megachile melanopyga Cockerell, 1909 (https://www.gbif.org/species/1335998) - correctly listed as doubtful

@mdoering , when a name entry does not provide a reference taxon, as for the younger 2 of the above, but cites the "GBIF Backbone Taxonomy" as the source: where do the names actually come from? How would the 1908 later synonym have become the accepted name, and what would be required to correct this?

[mdoering]

The API claims the sourceTaxonKey to be 173409177: https://api.gbif.org/v1/species/7507576

That apparently does not exist anymore: https://api.gbif.org/v1/species/173409177

If you search for the speciesMegachile melanopyga you see all kind of authorships in the results in many sources including the COL which has the younger names. My guess is those backbone names came all from COL. They still all 3 exist, but only Costa is accepted: https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/search?facet=rank&facet=issue&facet=status&facet=nomStatus&facet=nameType&facet=field&facet=authorship&facet=extinct&facet=environment&limit=50&offset=0&q=Megachile%20melanopyga&rank=species&sortBy=taxonomic

They indeed were provisionally accepted in the November 2021 edition we used in the last backbone build: https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/2351/names?content=SCIENTIFIC_NAME&facet=rank&facet=issue&facet=status&facet=nomStatus&facet=nameType&facet=field&facet=authorship&facet=authorshipYear&facet=extinct&facet=environment&facet=origin&limit=50&offset=0&q=Megachile%20melanopyga&rank=species&sortBy=taxonomic

So guess this is already fixed

[ahahn-gbif]

Thanks, @mdoering - in that case, we'll mark it as pending to check up again after the next backbone build.