I am not sure if I understand the problem.

If you search the GBIF backbone for Lembus you get 2 records. One synonym without descendants and one accepted taxon:

That looks correct to me and the synonym also does not return any children correctly:

We did change the underlying checklistbank database today which introduces considerable new data as all data in there has been freshly crawled from scratch.

Datasets that have been offline, e.g. NZOR, are therefore currently still missing.

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.

Lacking wikipedia unfortunately means there are much less vernacular names, descriptions and images available also for the GBIF backbone.

The backbone itself has not changed at all.

On 29 Jul 2015, at 16:15, Nozomi James Ytow <nozomi@biol.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:

Hi,

is there any modification made in numDescendants in species/?name response?

For example,
http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/?name=Lembus
returened one record with 2 descendants (I remember it as
http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/102321492 ) and two records with
16 descendatns arournt 2015-07-29 04:00 UTC (ish) but now
only one record of GBIF Backborn Taxonomy with 16 descendants
and others have no descendants.

http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/?name=Lembus%20infusionum
was shered lower name in there three records.
http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/102321493 is one of Lembus infusionum
which has parentKey 102321492. The parent key is the record had
two descandants.

The modified implementation requires to try /species/{int}/children
even if numDescendants is zero, because there may be descendants.
I prefer to the previous implementation to navigate classifications.

James

_______________________________________________
API-users mailing list
API-users@lists.gbif.org
http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/api-users