Inaccurate soft validation on Browse nomenclature and classification page

[hhopkins77]

Steps to reproduce the bug

1. On occasion I get the following soft validation, which is incorrect in what it is stating:

"Allostethus marensi has priority; it was described simultaneously, but at higher rank than Allostethus setiger."

2. Could this soft validation be eliminated or fixed?

Screenshot

Expected behavior

I would expect this soft validation to not appear.

Additional Screenshots

No response

Environment

Production

Sandbox Used

No response

Version

40.2

Browser Used

Chrome

[typophyllum]

As far as I remember this shows when "described simultaneously" is true, but not "at higher rank", i.e. the ranks are the same.

[proceps]

The real problem here is missing data: The original rank of the species could not be determined properly, since it is not recorded in the DB.

[hhopkins77]

Ok, thanks for spotting that! H

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 5:47 PM Dmitry Dmitriev @.***> wrote:

The real problem here is missing data: image.png (view on web) https://github.com/SpeciesFileGroup/taxonworks/assets/5597748/4976834f-e440-488d-a431-0288e9fd2131 The original rank of the species could not be determined properly, since it is not recorded in the DB.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SpeciesFileGroup/taxonworks/issues/3916#issuecomment-2048490033, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOXBKTVFSO7CE3C2IYDRGB3Y4WXNNAVCNFSM6AAAAABGAXTQAKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANBYGQ4TAMBTGM . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>

-- Heidi Hopkins, PhD Species File Group/TaxonWorks Curator of Small Insect Orders University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign, IL

"She is not what you would call refined. She is not what you would call unrefined. She is the type of woman who would keep a parrot." ~Mark Twain