Open mdoering opened 1 year ago
In COL there are 2 accepted Hyla genera from ITIS, both with species. Maybe that it the reason: https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/9910/taxon/4ZYM https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/9910/taxon/4ZYL
The problematic authorship comes from Plazi: https://www.gbif.org/species/176230819
DEBUG [07-02 02:23:20,332+0000] [main] org.gbif.checklistbank.nub.NubBuilder: process dataset c35887df ACCEPTED GENUS Hyla QUOYI – HYLA PRASINA CASE DEBUG [07-02 02:23:20,333+0000] [main] org.gbif.checklistbank.nub.NubBuilder: Updating Hyla from source Hyla QUOYI – HYLA PRASINA CASE DEBUG [07-02 02:23:20,333+0000] [main] org.gbif.checklistbank.nub.NubBuilder: Updating nomenclature for Hyla from source Hyla QUOYI – HYLA PRASINA CASE INFO [07-02 02:23:20,337+0000] [main] org.gbif.checklistbank.nub.NubBuilder: Processing 0 explicit basionym relations from The Hyla quoyi-Hyla prasina case (Amphibia, Anura), with comments on bibliographic and taxonomic databases and on Article 23.9 of the Co
There are likely many more cases like this one coming from COL, see issue linked above
We actually try to catch those by merging all accepted genera from the same source that have the same parent, e.g. family. Homonyms can exist across distant parts of the tree, but not as accepted sibling genera.
In this case one sits under a subfamily though, the other one directly under the family which causes them not to be detected.
The new backbone treats it fine again: http://backbonebuild-vh.gbif.org:9000/species/match?verbose=true&name=Hyla
is marked doubtful while Hyla Quoyi-Hyla Prasina Case took over. http://backbonebuild-vh.gbif.org:9000/species/match?verbose=true&name=Hyla