search

trias-project / unified-checklist

🇧🇪 Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species - Belgium
https://trias-project.github.io/unified-checklist/
MIT License
0 stars 1 forks source link

synonyms not linked in gbif backbone #51

Open timadriaens opened 4 years ago

timadriaens commented 4 years ago

Hi, there is a problem when downloading Orconectes limosus (our commonest North American crayfish) from gbif. The taxonomy changed and the accepted is now Faxonius limosus

Both are accepted names on gbif currently, but they are not linked. However, it is the same species (and it is on the union list...). How to solve this? @peterdesmet suggested adding both accepted names to the checklist? Should we also update the tsv with the Union List species?

peterdesmet commented 4 years ago

We are able to deal with GBIF lumps that we want to split (is the whole reason behind the verify_synonyms), but not GBIF splits that we want to lump. @damianooldoni : ideas?

damianooldoni commented 4 years ago

First thing I have in mind is: if you are sure that they are really the same species, we should mention it asap to GBIF. Check it very good and then we can report an issue to GBIF backbone. I see the two taxa come from Catalogue of Life and World Register of Marine Species respectively. Probably a temporary issue in the backbone? Speaking about number of occurrences in Belgium:

  1. 247 for Faxonius limosus (https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/search?country=BE&taxon_key=8909595)
  2. 1680 for Orconectes limosus (https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/search?country=BE&taxon_key=2227000)

To answer to @peterdesmet: I would add both accepted names to the unified checklist. The lumping should occur at datacube level when taxa are coupled to occurrences (taking into account synonyms, infraspecific taxa, etc.). Still, I don't think we will have to deal in the future with so many cases like this one.