Hi, this indeed is a problem of our name parser. Actually this is a rather tricky problem as a zoological subgenus notation using brackets is nearly impossible to tell apart from a genus name with an original author.

We refactored the name parser some time ago to take the rank of a name into account to be able to differ between those 2 options: http://dev.gbif.org/issues/browse/POR-2624

But it seems we have some outdated data hanging around here. The parser returns the correct canonical even without the rank given: http://api.gbif.org/v1/parser/name?name=Ficus%20(Diconoficus)

Ill try to reparse all names in checklist bank.

Markus

On 01 Feb 2016, at 09:22, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page@glasgow.ac.ukmailto:Roderic.Page@glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

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

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

Oops.

From: Nozomi "James" Ytow nozomi@biol.tsukuba.ac.jp Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 20:36:53 +0900 (JST)

It imiles that Ficus (Diconoficus) could be a scientific name only as a part of binomen or trinomen, e.g. Ficus (Diconoficus) gayana.

It implies, I meant.

James

Hi Markus,

unfortunately 6.1 only applies if the subgenus is part of a bi/trinonmial.

Article 6.1 says that "the scientific name of a subgenus ... must be interpolated in parentheses ..." which implies that what between parentheses of ariticle 6.1 style name is the scientific name of a subgenus. See Aritcle 4.1 also where names higher than species group are requied to be uninomen.

If the name itself IS the subgenus it is apparenlty valid. For sure its common practice even for recently published names: http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/45E20811-FEC5-4DBF-B7CB-D39AC32A8BFF

ICZN glossary says as

interpolated name A name placed within parentheses (1) after a generic name to denote a subgenus, (2) after a genus-group name to denote an aggregate of species, or (3) after a specific name to denote an aggregate of subspecies [Art. 6]. Names used in this way are not counted as one of the names in a binomen or trinomen.

I interprete it as Amphiglossus (Brygooscincus) denotes the subgenus Brygooscincus where Brygooscincus is the subgenereic name, It is a common practice, rather than a secientific name.

On page 66 of the publication http://www.smuggled.com/AJHI28-29.pdf which is the source of given ZooBank record uses "SUBGENUS BRYGOOSCINCUS SUBGEN. NOV." on the section title, and the description starts with "The subgenus of Amphiglossus Brygooscincus subgen. nov." The author uses subgenereic name Brygooscincus in parentheses only as species name.

Note that the ZooBank recored's spelling attribute is Brygooscincus.

James