ZFA/Uberon issues: inferior raphe nucleus

[gouttegd]

In ZFA, 'inferior raphe nucleus' is a 'hindbrain nucleus' and therefore part_of the hindbrain.

The ZFA term is mapped to Uberon’s 'dorsal raphe nucleus', which is ultimately part_of the midbrain (through several independent relationships).

This is a direct contradiction, and a violation of the disjointness between hindbrain and midbrain in Uberon.

I believe this may be a mapping error. According to Beecher, Beamer & Bartlett 2019, the “raphe nuclei” are

• the superior raphe nuclei
  • the dorsal raphe nucleus
  • the median raphe nucleus
  • the supralemniscal nucleus
• the inferior raphe nuclei
  • the nucleus raphe obscurus
  • the nucleus raphe pallidus
  • the nucleus raphe magnus

So it seems dubious that ZFA’s 'inferior raphe nucleus' should be mapped to 'dorsal raphe nucleus' which is (according to the classification above) a superior raphe nucleus.

In Uberon, 'nucleus raphe obscurus', 'nucleus raphe pallidus', and 'nucleus raphe magnus' are the three parts making up the 'medullay raphe nuclear complex'. So assuming that what ZFA calls the inferior raphe nucleus is the set of three nuclei that Beecher, Beamer & Bartlett call the inferior raphe nuclei, the ZFA term should be mapped to 'medullay raphe nuclear complex' instead.

Of note, if the above is true, that is, if inferior raphe nucleus is not the same thing as dorsal raphe nucleus, then there is an also a similar error in GO: 'inferior raphe nucleus development' is said to 'results in development of the 'dorsal raphe nucleus'.

[gouttegd]

@AvolaAmg If you could have a look at this issue and tell me whether I am completely wrong, that’d be much appreciated. :)

[cmungall]

Some background here:

• https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/8509

Although this doesn't really explain what I think is overzealous lumping. I think either a split or simply dropping the xrefs is warranted here