your indexed records for Corallus hortulanus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Squamata: Serpentes: Boidae) diet: predation events on two Passeriformes at the Atlantic Rainforest, southeastern Brazil. 2016. Herpetology Notes 9: 87-89

[wneser]

Hi!

Thanks for helping to make existing biotic interaction data easier to find and access!

I was just looking at your GloBI indexed record at https://www.globalbioticinteractions.org/?interactionType=interactsWith&sourceTaxon=Trachylepis%20quinquetaeniata and I was wondering about ... (please add your own text) The entry seems to have several errors:

1. Red Adder is not Bitis caudalis, but rather BItis rubida
2. The range of the Trachylepis does not overlap with the Red Adder (Bitis rubida).
3. The range of the Trachylepis does operlap in places with Bitis caudalis (Horned Adder), but the habits and habitat of the Trachylepis and BItis caudalis do not overlap, so interaction even where ranges do overlap, is extremely unlikely, or would be considered exceptional.

[jhpoelen]

hey @wneser thanks for taking the time to share your observations. Also, thanks for being patient as we are trying to address your comments together. I'll attempt to address your observations separately below.

[jhpoelen]

1. Red Adder is not Bitis caudalis, but rather BItis rubida

The common names (and image) shown in the (basic) GloBI search pages originate from Wikidata. In this case, the name Bitis caudalis was (suspiciously) linked to wikidata's Bitis rubida https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1017602 . On close inspection of GloBI's taxon map, the following is revealed:

curl "https://zenodo.org/record/5719410/files/taxonMap.tsv.gz"\
 | gunzip\
 | grep "Bitis caudalis"
        Bitis caudalis  GBIF:2444829    Bitis caudalis
    Bitis caudalis  GBIF:2444831    Bitis rubida
    Bitis caudalis  INAT_TAXON:95802    Bitis caudalis
    Bitis caudalis  IRMNG:10475413  Bitis caudalis
    Bitis caudalis  IRMNG:11253401  Bitis rubida
    Bitis caudalis  ITIS:634951 Bitis caudalis

Indicating that, somehow, some taxonomic name resource claims that Bitis caudalis should be interpreted as GBIF's and IRMNG's Bitis rubida .

In tracing the origin, it appears that Global Names (@dimus) claims that Bitis caudalis is a synonym of GBIF/IRMNG's Bitis rubida .

$ echo -e "\tBitis caudalis" | nomer append globalnames | grep SYNONYM
[main] INFO org.globalbioticinteractions.nomer.match.TermMatcherRegistry - using matcher [globi-globalnames]
    Bitis caudalis  SYNONYM_OF  IRMNG:11253401  Bitis rubida    speciesAnimalia | Chordata | Reptilia | Squamata | Viperidae | Bitis | Bitis rubida IRMNG:11 | IRMNG:148 | IRMNG:1448 | IRMNG:10658 | IRMNG:103448 | IRMNG:1324783 | IRMNG:11253401 kingdom | phylum | class | order | family | genus | species https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11253401    
    Bitis caudalis  SYNONYM_OF  GBIF:2444831    Bitis rubida    speciesAnimalia | Chordata | Reptilia | Squamata | Viperidae | Bitis | Bitis rubida GBIF:1 | GBIF:44 | GBIF:358 | GBIF:715 | GBIF:5024 | GBIF:2444943 | GBIF:2444831kingdom | phylum | class | order | family | genus | species http://www.gbif.org/species/2444831 

However, other taxonomic resources like ITIS, do appear to treat Bitis caudalis as an accepted name.

https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=634951#null

Also, GBIF backbone (accessed 2021-12-29) interpretation also seems to accept the name Bitis caudalis https://www.gbif.org/species/2444829 . No reference to a synonym can be found.

However, in https://resolver.globalnames.org , the claim that Bitis caudalis is a synonym of Bitis rubida is made (see attached screenshot made on 2021-12-29)

So, it appears that the root of the suspicious name mapping lies in https://resolver.globalnames.org . Do you agree?

[dimus]

It looks like Bitis caudalis Visser, 1979 is a homonym, that was renamed/removed because Bitis caudalis (Smith, 1839) already existed. I would use https://verifier.globalnames.org instead of https://resolver.globalnames.org because the later is not developed anymore and will be removed in 2022-2023 or so.

Verifier does take in account such cases and provides as the best result Bitis caudalis (Smith, 1839)

https://verifier.globalnames.org/?all_matches=on&all_sources=on&capitalize=on&format=html&names=Bitis+caudalis

Is Accepted Name criteria favors "currently accepted" names to synonyms during name resolution.

[dimus]

Sadly scientific names are not always reliable identifiers, but they are the best identifiers that we have so far, and with some trickery they can become better identifiers :)

[wneser]

Thank you guys for looking at this! Visser 1979 (and Visser largely), is problematic... Bitis caudalis (Smith, 1839) should be regarded as correct

[jhpoelen]

@wneser @dimus Thanks for clarifying. I missed the homonyms. Great to have an example to point to how important it is to properly handle homonyms, synonyms and other name relations.

fyi @n8upham @seltmann

[dimus]

@jhpoelen I would also add that authorship is way more tricky than a "canonical form" and is quite a 'can of worms'. For example L., Linn., Linné, Linne, Linney, Linnaeus, Linnæus can be the same person, and L. f. can be a son of the 'first' L., or the 'first' L. and a "forma" rank of an infraspecies. There are also 'ex' authors that have pretty much opposite meanings in ICN and ICZN codes and so on.

So comparing authorship "as is" might create more trouble than solve. In Go version of GNparser quite a few tricky situations are addressed (this is why I would really love if someone could make Java version of it from C-binding code for all the Java folks). https://github.com/gnames/gnparser/blob/master/binding/main.go

For authorship comparison I use modified idea of @pleary https://github.com/gnames/gnames/blob/master/ent/score/auth.go

[jhpoelen]

@dimus thanks for pointing out that authorship comparison can be quite tricky. And, I love worms, especially when they come in cans ; )

I very much like how observations shared by folks like @wneser can help us to try and find pragmatic ways to relate names to each other.

See also https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/globalbioticinteractions/issues/745 .

[wneser]

@jhpoelen , I'm a noob here, but, on the other hand, I know the animals in the field, and familiar with their literature from old to current , so when I do visit these resources, it is sometimes easy to spot things - I hope I can occasionally help from that angle.

[dimus]

@wneser, feedback like yours is very important, because programmers like @jhpoelen and @dimus are not taxonomists and such feedback gives us better idea about taxonomy/nomenclature and how to reflect it in the code.