<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello again James,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I have found the issue and it was a true bug. It should be fixed now and in the future. </div><div class=""><a href="http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/102321492" class="">http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/102321492</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If you still happen to find such cases please report them to me!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks,</div><div class="">Markus</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 30 Jul 2015, at 10:06, Markus Döring <<a href="mailto:mdoering@gbif.org" class="">mdoering@gbif.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">Hi James,<br class=""><br class="">good news first, the Wikipedia and Index Fungorum datasets have been indexed and are back online.<br class=""><br class="">The descendants issue you see is indeed some bug and should not be that way. I cannot explain it right now, but I’ll try to find the reason for it and reprocess the data accordingly.<br class="">You should still be able to rely on numDescandants for your browser.<br class=""><br class="">best,<br class="">Markus<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 30 Jul 2015, at 00:05, Nozomi James Ytow <<a href="mailto:nozomi@biol.tsukuba.ac.jp" class="">nozomi@biol.tsukuba.ac.jp</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">Hi Markus,<br class=""><br class="">the issue is that some non-GBIF backbone records telling zero numDecendants<br class="">althoug they have child record(s) in their dataset(s).<br class="">I expcect non-zero numDecendants value if there is/are child/children record(s)<br class="">in the same dataset, as previous. <br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">If you search the GBIF backbone for Lembus you get 2 records. One synonym without descendants and one accepted taxon:<br class=""><a href="http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/?name=Lembus&datasetKey=d7dddbf4-2cf0-4f39-9b2a-bb099caae36c" class="">http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/?name=Lembus&datasetKey=d7dddbf4-2cf0-4f39-9b2a-bb099caae36c</a> <<a href="http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/?name=Lembus&datasetKey=d7dddbf4-2cf0-4f39-9b2a-bb099caae36c" class="">http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/?name=Lembus&datasetKey=d7dddbf4-2cf0-4f39-9b2a-bb099caae36c</a>><br class=""></blockquote><br class="">numDecendants works as previous for GBIF backbone records, but not for other dataset. For example,<br class=""><a href="http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/?name=Lembus&datasetKey=9ca92552-f23a-41a8-a140-01abaa31c931" class="">http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/?name=Lembus&datasetKey=9ca92552-f23a-41a8-a140-01abaa31c931</a><br class="">tells numDecendants=0 but there is <br class="">http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/?name=Lembus%20infusionum&datasetKey=9ca92552-f23a-41a8-a140-01abaa31c931<br class="">of which parentKey designanates the record above. I expect the numDecendants of the Lembus record<br class="">designated by the parentKey to have non-zero value.<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">That looks correct to me and the synonym also does not return any children correctly:<br class="">http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/2386427/children <http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/2386427/children><br class=""></blockquote><br class="">It is right bebause the record does not have child recods.<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">We did change the underlying checklistbank database today which introduces considerable new data as all data in there has been freshly crawled from scratch.<br class="">Datasets that have been offline, e.g. NZOR, are therefore currently still missing.<br class="">We also had some issue indexing wikipedia and Index Fungorum, so those 2 are also not yet in but I hope to get those indexed over the weekend latest.<br class="">Lacking wikipedia unfortunately means there are much less vernacular names, descriptions and images available also for the GBIF backbone.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">It might be side-effect of the change. I wait for a while...<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">The backbone itself has not changed at all.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">It is not isssue of the backbone. Checklistbank is a good datasouce of taxon concepts captured in datasets.<br class=""><br class="">James<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">API-users mailing list<br class="">API-users@lists.gbif.org<br class="">http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/api-users<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">API-users mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:API-users@lists.gbif.org" class="">API-users@lists.gbif.org</a><br class="">http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/api-users<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>