How to write `scientificName` for taxa with `taxonRank` = `speciesAggregate`

[damianooldoni]

We need to map some species aggregated taxa (see https://github.com/riparias/vmm-macrophytes-occurrences/issues/3#issuecomment-1092759261).

speciesAggregate seems a valid DwC term for taxonRank (see https://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/gbif/rank_2015-04-24.xml). I just wonder how to write the scientificName of such aggregated species. In the link I provided, I read:

Zoology: 'Aggregate - a group of species, other than a subgenus, within a genus. An aggregate may be denoted by a group name interpolated in parentheses.'

Something like Callitriche (obtusangula,platycarpa)? Maybe it would be nice to add some suggestions/examples in documentation.

Thanks a lot.

[peterdesmet]

Another common use case are observations where the observer hesitates between two or more species:

Branta canadensis / Branta hutchinsii

One could provide the genus (Branta), but then one looses originally provided information. What is the best way to write the scientific name here? And what taxonRank should be assigned?

[albenson-usgs]

I'm not sure if this is correct but in cases like Branta canadensis/hutchinsii I put "Branta" in scientificName and "canadensis/hutchinsii" in identificationQualifier and taxonRank = "genus".

[ManonGros]

@mdoering do you have any recommendation on how to write scientific names for species aggregate?

[mdoering]

For species aggregates / species groups we recommend agg. as the rank marker and treat it otherwise just like a binomial. The name parser rank enumeration contains this:

/**

• A loosely defined group of species, often in flux.
• Often also called species complex, or superspecies. */ SPECIES_AGGREGATE("agg."),

and contains some tests for aggregate names that can be parsed:

• Achillea millefolium agg. L.
• Strumigenys koningsbergeri-group
• Selenophorus parumpunctatus species group
• Monomorium monomorium group

group is another often found marker that the parser understands.

The species aggregate should use a single epithet/word for the aggregate name, otherwise it will not be parsable and much harder to compare. Hypsiboas calcaratus species complex is being used in [this paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3904076/) which should be parsable as it uses calcaratus as the name for the complex.

There is no support or even recommendation on how to deal with identifications to multiple taxa. This is a long outstanding issue which needs both guidelines and support/implementation in a whole range of GBIF software. It is not an easy feature to add, but I reckon well worth a coordinated effort.

[peterdesmet]

Thanks @mdoering that clarifies how to submit species groups. I notice they get exact matched to the species:

Ranunculus peltatus group -> Ranunculus peltatus Schrank

Why I assume is intended behaviour.

This is a long outstanding issue which needs both guidelines and support/implementation in a whole range of GBIF software. It is not an easy feature to add, but I reckon well worth a coordinated effort.

Would it be useful to create a separate issue for those, so this one can be closed?

[mdoering]

Yes, lets open a new one for IDs to multiple taxa. The exact match of the species group to the regular species might not be ideal. We don't include any aggregates in the backbone, but I think a fuzzy match would be better in that case!

[peterdesmet]

Issue about 2 provides names now recorded at https://github.com/gbif/portal-feedback/issues/4023. The remaining task in this issue is to treat names that contain group as a fuzzy rather than exact match.