jhammock
commented
6 years ago This is likely to result from the ancestry provided for the records. We rely on the proximal data source (in this case GBIF) to provide ancestry. I just checked one of your Aphantophryne records (https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/691072542) and as you can see, the family listed is Microhylidae. There can be a lot of variation around the subfamily->order level, so searches by these terms can frequently behave this way.
I did a search for Asterophryinae (as per Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2017 Jul;112:1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2017.04.008. Epub 2017 Apr 13. Molecular phylogenetics and dating of the problematic New Guinea microhylid frogs (Amphibia: Anura) reveals elevated speciation rates and need for taxonomic reclassification. Rivera JA(1), Kraus F(2), Allison A(3), Butler MA(4).) with the URL: http://www.effechecka.org/?limit=20&taxonSelector=Asterophryinae&traitSelector=&wktString=POLYGON%20%28%28-180%20-60%2C%20-180%2075%2C%20180%2075%2C%20180%20-60%2C%20-180%20-60%29%29, but the result was no records available! The odd thing is that all (21) genus names gave the same result, but a search of GBIF for just Aphantophryne (one of the genera) gave 813 results, of which 377 also had coordinates (https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/map?taxon_key=2421880) . Any suggestions for this anomaly???