mdoering
commented
1 year ago The backbone has both genera and only a single species in the animal one, so this seems correct: https://www.gbif.org/species/2408085
There is another fish name Tydemania japonica Kamohara, 1941, but it is treated as a synonym of Atrophacanthus japonicus (Kamohara, 1941) according to FishBase.
The problems that you have seem to be incorrectly matched occurrences, not a wrong taxonomy. The occurrences of the fish genus indeed contain herbarium records from Australis like this one: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1936753016
Most seem to be the algae species Tydemania expeditionis which is in the backbone. But the original taxonomy given by the publisher is just very wrong and makes it a fish :(
(from helpdesk)
Dear GBIF,
I downloaded all occurrence records for the fish family “Triacanthodidae”, the Spikefishes.
There is a genus of spikefish, Tydemania, that is monotypic as currently understood and the only valid species is Tydemania navigatoris. I noticed that there was another species included in the dataset, Tydemania expeditionis. Tydemania expeditionis is a green algae, not a spikefish. Can GBIF resolve the higher classifications issue (i.e., changing from Animalia to Plantae) or does each institution that has records under Animalia need to update them?