Looks like the issue is with GBIF’s handling of data, rather than the data source itself.
For the subgenus we have http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/100969508:
"scientificName":"Ficus (Diconoficus)”, "canonicalName":”Ficus”, "authorship":" (Diconoficus)”
so the subgenus has mistakenly been treated as the authorship of the name.
For the species, GBIF ignores subgenera and so regards Ficus gayana as the canonical name.
Regards
Rod
--------------------------------------------------------- Roderic Page Professor of Taxonomy Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Graham Kerr Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
Email: Roderic.Page@glasgow.ac.ukmailto:Roderic.Page@glasgow.ac.uk Tel: +44 141 330 4778 Skype: rdmpage Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767 Citations: http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roderic_Page
On 31 Jan 2016, at 23:32, Nozomi James Ytow <nozomi@biol.tsukuba.ac.jpmailto:nozomi@biol.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
Diconoficus