Closed klausriede closed 2 months ago
Thanks, data completed. The "unspecified primary types" from the old OSF migrated as syntypes.
@MMCigliano of course they should have migrated as "unspecified primary types" What else was changed during migration? e.f.q.
The original data needed to be mapped to the available categories, and we had agreed to migrate the unspecified primary types as syntypes, which comes closest to the lack of specification. At some point we should probably filter for syntypes among species described in the past century and try to complete the data.
why not add a category, or use the higher category - Type ? In any case an Unspecified primary type needs specification, so that might be a task forthe future. I am not a taxonomist, but syntype in this case is definitely WRONG, I would say..
Currently such syntypes are flagged with an Unspecified primary type
confidence in the workbench. There are currently 3,900 type material instances with such flag.
irb(main):025> CollectionObject.joins(:type_materials).merge(TypeMaterial.where(id: Confidence.joins(:confidence_level).merge(ConfidenceLevel.where(name: 'Unspecified primar
y type')).where(project_id: 46).pluck(:confidence_object_id))).count
=> 3900
Ah, great, at least they are flagged! A rather simple query might reveal those wrongly assigned as syntypes: all species which correspond to only one OTU (oOos - one OTU onlys)
...it´s a full-fledged holotype https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/eo/item/ensif6486 . More details of collection event on Label. Locality of San Pablo de Kantesya should be available with coordinates, I vaguely remember that I added this locality because various types collected by me are from there