ManonGros
commented
7 months ago Hi @deepreef,
I am not sure how the Zoobank database is exported to GBIF but would it be possible to add a higher taxonomy for Paleohaimatus Poinar, 2017? (https://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/7dda5ade-e3f1-45c8-ae69-980324c3d2de). Right now, none seems to be provided (https://www.gbif.org/species/128694257) which means that we match it under the kingdom Animalia. This is how it appears in the GBIF backbone taxonomy.
According to the original publication, it should be under the order Piroplasmida (see the comment above).
Taxonomy: fossil apicomplexan genus Paleohaimatus classified under Animalia
Hello, the fossil apicomplexan genus Paleohaimatus (taxonID 9634234) is classified under kingdom Animalia inc. sed., presumably because the source is ZooBank, where no higher taxon is given (ZooBank LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:7DDA5ADE-E3F1-45C8-AE69-980324C3D2DE).
According to the original publication (https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjw247) it should be in the apicomplexan order Piroplasmida (closest match in GBIF is Piroplasmorida taxonID 9101837).
Github user: @kbseah User: See in registry - Send email System: Chrome 116.0.0 / Mac OS X 10.15.7 Referer: https://www.gbif.org/species/9634234 Window size: width 1280 - height 692 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