[API-users] Scientific names questions

[Scott Chamberlain]

Richard,

Thanks for the response! All makes sense. I'll work on making sure my users
are aware of these issues and give them options according to their use
case.

---

Markus,


Thanks, I'll follow those issues.

> please let us know about those duplicate names.

Where? in JIRA, or a github repo issues?

Best, Scott

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:13 AM Markus Döring <mdoering at gbif.org> wrote:

> Hi Scott,
>
> these are indeed unwanted duplications of species in our backbone. The
> software that builds the backbone so far does not yet try to synonymize
> these spelling variations automatically as it is quite easy to get that
> wrong. We will work on this in an improved version of the algorithm, the
> open issue is here:
> http://dev.gbif.org/issues/browse/POR-2812
>
> … which is part of the next round of improving the backbone building:
> http://dev.gbif.org/issues/browse/POR-3029
>
>
> Until then please let us know about those duplicate names. It helps
> understanding the problem better and as a last resort we could add those
> names to our patch list as known spelling variations, i.e. synonyms. They
> then get synonymized in future backbone versions:
> https://github.com/gbif/backbone-patch
>
>
> Many thanks,
> Markus
>
>
>
> On 11 May 2016, at 23:22, Scott Chamberlain <myrmecocystus at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> HI all,
>
> Not sure where is best to ask this... so here goes. Let me know if there's
> a better place.
>
> The following are examples some users have highlighted for me as leading
> to confusion when searching for taxa.
>
> 1. Macrozamia platyrachis (http://www.gbif.org/species/4928834) vs.
> Macrozamia platyrhachis (http://www.gbif.org/species/2683551)
>
> Here, the two spellings (with/without h) are accepted, and exact matches.
> The sci. authority seems to differ with F. M. Bailey vs. F.M.Bailey. The
> first is from GRIN taxonomy and the second from COL.
>
> Anyway, for users e.g., of the R client, this is a bit confusing. I had
> thought the backbone taxonomy would only have one master taxon key and name
> for each real taxon, but here it seems like there's two?
>
> 2. Cycas circinalis (http://www.gbif.org/species/2683264 ) vs. Cycas
> circinnalis (http://www.gbif.org/species/3594916 )
>
> Here, the two spellings (with 1 or 2 "n"'s) are accepted, and exact
> matches. The sci. authorities here are exactly the same. The first is
> from COL and the second from IPNI taxonomy.
>
> 3. Isolona perrieri (http://www.gbif.org/species/3648546 ) vs Isolona
> perrierii (http://www.gbif.org/species/6308376 )
>
> Here, the two spellings (with 1 or 2 "i"'s) are accepted, and exact
> matches. The sci. authorities here are exactly the same. The first is
> from TPL and the second from COL
>
> --------
>
> Should I advise users to when searching on the backbone taxonomy to limit
> to COL to avoid any confusion about names?
>
> Best,
> Scott Chamberlain
>
> _______________________________________________
> API-users mailing list
> API-users at lists.gbif.org
> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/api-users
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gbif.org/pipermail/api-users/attachments/20160512/8a60e7ad/attachment.html>