ManonGros
commented
1 week ago It seems that if you provide the order, the name matches to Arachnida: https://api.gbif.org/v1/species/match?name=Acari&kingdom=Animalia&phylum=Arthropoda&order=Acari&class=Arachnida
Alternatively, if you specify that the name provided is of the rank "order", the algorithm matches to Arachnida: https://api.gbif.org/v1/species/match?name=Acari&rank=ORDER&kingdom=Animalia&phylum=Arthropoda&class=Arachnida
Using Acariformes instead of Acari also matches to Arachnida: https://api.gbif.org/v1/species/match?name=Acariformes&kingdom=Animalia&phylum=Arthropoda&class=Arachnida
If there is no rank nor order provided, "Acari" matches is to the Lepidoptera genus Amara: https://api.gbif.org/v1/species/match?name=Acari&kingdom=Animalia&phylum=Arthropoda&class=Arachnida
Perhaps Acari could be added to the GBIF Backbone taxonomy. In the meanwhile, providing the order or providing a rank value would help improve the match.
Just discovered that any mite records in Arctos identified as subclass Acari using the WoRMS and TPT via Arctos taxonomy sources are being converted by GBIF to a butterfly genus and by iDigBio to a Mollusc. See https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/7873
https://arctos.database.museum/guid/MSB:Para:44464 See https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/4165998931 https://www.idigbio.org/portal/records/1faf948d-9428-449a-9493-22bc9d1b623c
But GloBI gets it right: https://www.globalbioticinteractions.org/?accordingTo=http%3A%2F%2Farctos.database.museum%2Fguid%2FMSB%3APara%3A44464&interactionType=interactsWith
However, Arctos collections using the Arctos classification source are being assigned correctly: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1146095272
Any suggestions on what we can do to fix?