search

gbif / portal-feedback

User feedback for the GBIF API, website and published data. You can ask questions here. 🗨❓
30 stars 16 forks source link

Holotype of Lynx rufus superiorensis wrongly matched to backbone #4612

Open gbif-portal opened 1 year ago

gbif-portal commented 1 year ago

Holotype of Lynx rufus superiorensis wrongly matched to backbone

The holotype appear to be for the subspecies superiorensis, which is given in the verbatim data as dwc:infraspecificEpithet. It is NOT mentioned in the verbatim scientificName, why I assume we only match it to the species in the backbone.

Should we inform the publisher to correct the scientificName field? Should our interpretation pipelines better pass on the subspecies epithet or does our matching need to handle that better?

User: See in registry - Send email System: Safari 16.2.0 / Mac OS X 10.15.7 Referer: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1211855610 Window size: width 1500 - height 837 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 datasetKey: c5c4a23e-2035-4416-ab64-032d6df52ddb publishingOrgKey: ff418020-1d67-11d9-8435-b8a03c50a862 Network keys: 99d66b6c-9087-452f-a9d4-f15f2c2d0e7e

mdoering commented 1 year ago

For holotypes proper matching is essential and higher rank or fuzzy matches are dangerous

mdoering commented 1 year ago

Currently we require all atomic name parts to exist before they get used. This works: http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/match?verbose=true&infraspecificEpithet=superiorensis&specificEpithet=rufus&genus=Lynx

But with the full name given it does not: http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/match?verbose=true&infraspecificEpithet=superiorensis&specificEpithet=rufus&genus=Lynx&name=Lynx%20rufus

Acceptable behavior?