ManonGros
commented
3 years ago It seems that we could have some duplicates due to (undocumented?) spelling variants. There are a few things are happening here:
- CoL provides Microcarbo pygmeus (Pallas, 1773) as an accepted species: https://www.gbif.org/species/6066518
- the IUCN Red List provides Microcarbo pygmaeus (Pallas, 1773) as accepted: https://www.gbif.org/species/176605295. Although in the backbone it is labelled as "homotypic synonym": https://www.gbif.org/species/10095118.
- Microcarbo pygmeus (Pallas, 1773) has a synonym: Phalacrocorax pygmeus (Pallas, 1773) (https://www.gbif.org/species/2481888)
- Microcarbo pygmaeus (Pallas, 1773) is a synonym of Phalacrocorax pygmaeus (Pallas, 1773) (https://www.gbif.org/species/4848931)
I don't know if the correct spelling is pygmeus or pygmaeus. A quick search seems to show that pygmaeus is more popular. In any case, it would be good to have one provided as a synonym/spelling variant of the the other in order to avoid the duplication.
duplicated species
These species are duplicates of the same species:
https://www.gbif.org/species/4848931https://www.gbif.org/species/6066518Best,
User: See in registry System: Chrome 79.0.3945 / Windows 10.0.0 Referer: https://www.gbif.org/species/4848931 Window size: width 1517 - height 675 API log&_a=(columns:!(_source),index:'prod-varnish-',interval:auto,query:(query_string:(analyze_wildcard:!t,query:'response:%3E499')),sort:!('@timestamp',desc))) Site log&_a=(columns:!(_source),index:'prod-portal-',interval:auto,query:(query_string:(analyze_wildcard:!t,query:'response:%3E499')),sort:!('@timestamp',desc))) System health at time of feedback: OPERATIONAL