Taxonomic fixes to Tax Inventory

[GoogleCodeExporter]

1. this species does not have the line at top of page saying what relative it 
is of: http://www.cwrdiversity.org/checklist/cwr-details.php?specie_id=448
here is (at least one of) its crops: 
http://www.cwrdiversity.org/checklist/genepool-details.php?id=456

2. CWR taxa such as these do not seem to be associated with any crop...is that 
true?.. is this an error in the db or are they just random species included in 
the Inventory but not connected to any crop?  Hopefully Holly can help clarify 
this. 
http://www.cwrdiversity.org/checklist/cwr-details.php?specie_id=4092
http://www.cwrdiversity.org/checklist/cwr-details.php?specie_id=4097

Original issue reported on code.google.com by colin.kh...@gmail.com on 14 Nov 2012 at 3:19

[GoogleCodeExporter]

we still have some species without a line on top saying what crop it is related 
to.  eg 
http://www.cwrdiversity.org/checklist/cwr-details.php?specie_id=384

also some unknown errors:
http://www.cwrdiversity.org/checklist/genepool-details.php?id=3828

Original comment by colin.kh...@gmail.com on 28 Jan 2013 at 8:02

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by alexgcv@gmail.com on 8 Feb 2013 at 7:03

• Changed state: Accepted

[GoogleCodeExporter]

For point 2 above, these cwr have breeding potential for Medicago sativa so are 
included in the database. I'm not sure why some CWR don't have the associated 
gene pool line as Taxon_ID: 384 is in two gene pools.

Original comment by holly.vi...@gmail.com on 28 Feb 2013 at 6:10

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by alexgcv@gmail.com on 18 Apr 2013 at 4:56

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

For Phaseolus persistentus (Taxon_ID = 384), we had a wrong Taxon_ID's (16 , 
51) (these we believe were the former/shorter names for the bean crop species, 
but later were changed). Those has been changed to (191 , 383). For point 2, 
Medicago scutellata have breeding potential for Medicago truncatula (fixed). 
But Medicago rugosa (4092) don't have any concept / breeding use with a gene 
pool (only with Medicago sativa (29) (similar to the phaseolus issue above) I 
changed the Crop_ID = 29 to Crop_ID = 290 on Breeding_data table.  We need to 
cross check any crop names that got changed- if any of them had use species 
that didn’t get their codes changed to the correct associated crop species.

Original comment by alexgcv@gmail.com on 18 Apr 2013 at 7:18

• Changed state: Accepted

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by colin.kh...@gmail.com on 3 Jul 2013 at 4:19

• Changed state: Verified