Closed LienReyserhove closed 6 years ago
Would it be possible to say Lacerta viridis s.l. ? Quentin
Dr. Quentin Groom (Botany and Information Technology)
Botanic Garden Meise Domein van Bouchout B-1860 Meise Belgium
ORCID: 0000-0002-0596-5376 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0596-5376
Landline; +32 (0) 226 009 20 ext. 364 FAX: +32 (0) 226 009 45
E-mail: quentin.groom@plantentuinmeise.be Skype name: qgroom Website: www.botanicgarden.be
On 4 July 2018 at 17:28, Lien Reyserhove notifications@github.com wrote:
One of the records in the list has the scientific name Lacerta viridis (Laurenti, 1768) / bilineata
Wikipedia tells me this:
There is an ongoing discussion as to whether Lacerta viridis and Lacerta bilineata are separate species. Genetic data weakly supports their separation into two species but more investigation needs to be done.
Still, I think it's best to choose here as two names is a bit confusing...
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/trias-project/ad-hoc-checklist/issues/19, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFRj0OKB1nKgEowERVZ9ajbOgebHVzjxks5uDN8DgaJpZM4VCwxn .
Good suggestion, this works with the gbif name match function. I will integrate this accordingly.
The species have effectively been split, and it makes a difference as one is from southwest Europe the other from southeast Europe. But I agree, L. viridis s.l. is ok, and we should set origin generally on "southern Europe" then.
@timadriaens will you update this in the source data?
changed to Lacerta viridis (Laurenti, 1768) s.l.
@timadriaens One of the records in the list has the scientific name
Lacerta viridis (Laurenti, 1768) / bilineata
Wikipedia tells me this:
Still, I think it's best to choose here as two names is a bit confusing...