Open ApoSimon opened 2 years ago
It appears to me that the data is not duplicated between synonyms is this case.
There appears to be mapping of occurrences between the two names. Nereis virens Sars, 1835 <--> Alitta virens (M.Sars, 1835)
This is the backbone taxonomy record: https://www.gbif.org/species/5196123 However, the original publication information is only contained in the COL-checklist record: https://www.gbif.org/species/174769627 ("This is the interpretation of the species as published in Catalogue of Life Checklist."; links to https://www.gbif.org/species/5196123)
The Alitta virens (M.Sars, 1835) record (https://www.gbif.org/species/2315395) links three synonyms "Nereis virens (M) Sars, 1835":
@ApoSimon should this be reopened?
@jhnwllr I think so, yes. It seems to me to be a case, which probably holds some insights into similar problems of species level taxa matching.
The species name Nereis virens Sars, 1835 (syn. of Alitta virens (M.Sars, 1835), https://www.gbif.org/species/2315395) is duplicated in the backbone with different associated data.
Nereis virens Sars, 1835: https://www.gbif.org/species/5196123
Nereis virens Sars, 1835: https://www.gbif.org/species/10958414