Closed stijnvanhoey closed 7 years ago
yes we should or we'll have an underestimation of the current baseline distribution reported to EASIN, at least in Flanders.
But the proper way would be to add scripta and elegans as subordinate taxa in GBIF (if they are according to cutting edge taxonomy of course)...
So, if I understand correctly all 3 subspecies should have the same parent Trachemys scripta? I'll submit an issue to GBIF.
Issue logged at https://github.com/gbif/checklistbank/issues/24.
Question: are there any native species for the whole genus Trachemys
in Belgium? Because we could (temporarily) use the genus to return occurrences for all Trachemys species and subspecies, including Trachemys scripta subsp. elegans and Trachemys scripta subsp. scripta.
nope, no native turtles in Belgium, so that could indeed be a solution
Ok, then I propose to search for Trachemys for the time being. @stijnvanhoey can you update this in the aggregated checklist?
Update is done, both in the alien species checklist (thanks @peterdesmet) and the t0 data set.
In the current list,
Trachemys scripta Schoepff, 1792
is taken into account, for which it is assumed that all subspecies (e.g.elegans
) are taken into account as well. However, when checking GBIF, the only subspecies that is taken into account, is the Trachemys scripta subsp. troostii , whereas Trachemys scripta subsp. elegans and Trachemys scripta subsp. scripta is not defined as a subspecies of Trachemys scripta Schoepff, 1792.As a result, when downloading data from GBIF based on this accepted name, the
elagans
norscripta
subspecies are part of the downloaded data set.@peterdesmet @timadriaens @SanderDevisscher Should we add Trachemys scripta subsp. elegans (and other subspecies) as a separate entry into the aggregated checklist? Or should we directly aim to request adaptations to the taxonomic definition of GBIF?