non standard pathwway values

[damianooldoni]

I see two pathways for this species (https://www.gbif.org/species/168131176) in the ad-hoc checklist:

• cbd_2014_pathway:contaminant
• cbd_2014_pathway:nursery

nursery is not a pathway level 1, but a pathway level 2 within contaminant. My proposal: replace the two pathways with this: cbd_2014_pathway:contaminant

[timadriaens]

There is something strange here, herptiles in the unified are taken from the herptile checklist, NOT the ad hoc list (so how come gbif mentions this?)

[timadriaens]

the pathway should be contaminant nursery material, so the correct abbreviation is contaminant_nursery. In other words, it should have been an underscore instead of an upright slash. I have changed this mistake in the herptile checklist (line 30)

[damianooldoni]

The link I put above in this issue is a link to the taxon in the Ad hoc checklist, so GBIF mentions that, of course 😄 @timadriaens, the taxon from the unified is this one: https://www.gbif.org/species/182133522 As you can see, the pathways are not coming from ONE checklist only, but this is to be expected as this is the strategy applied for unifiying pathway information along all the checklists. @peterdesmet, correct me if I am wrong.

[timadriaens]

Hmmm, as far as I know, herptiles were taken out of the ad hoc when we drafted a better herptile checklist. I cannot find Ambystoma on the ad hoc.

[damianooldoni]

Thanks @timadriaens. Then I think it's just a question to update the ad hoc checklist as published on GBIF. @LienReyserhove, am I right?

[damianooldoni]

Yes, I am right 😄 This is the taxonomy of the ad hoc as published on GBIF at this moment

[LienReyserhove]

You are completely right ;-) it needs an urgent update, taking care of it. Closing this issue as the problem with the pathways is resloved.