checklistbank
checklistbank copied to clipboard
gbif
GBIF Checklist Bank
When a OTU source dataset (UNITE, BOLD) has a different accepted taxon than GBIF for a parent taxon of an OTU, the OTU ends up as a synonym of the...
The GBIF taxonomic backbone provides keys for the main taxonomic levels (`kingdom`, `phylum`, `class`, `order` etc.). However, several major sub- or superlevels are not present in the backbone, such as...
Taking advantage of the conversation about the ScientificNameAuthorship in the GBIF Backbone (@vjrj @mdoering ;)), I would like to rescue a nomenclatural issue about Bryophyte names. There was a discussion...
If you look at [this record](https://api.gbif.org/v1/species/1000111) you'll see ``` basionym": "Methanobacterium ruminantium Smith & Hungate, 1958", "scientificName": "Methanobrevibacter ruminantium (Smith & Hungate, 1958) Balch & Wolfe, 1981", "canonicalName": "Methanobrevibacter ruminantium",...
Looses its higher taxonomy https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5FW9Y - may be related to other issues with Riodinidae ``` { "count": 1337, "verbatim_kingdom": "Animalia", "verbatim_phylum": "Arthropoda", "verbatim_class": "Insecta", "verbatim_order": "Lepidoptera", "verbatim_family": "Lycaenidae", "verbatim_genus": "Baeotis",...
This issue seems to also be present for the genera: Baeotis, Calydna, Mesosemia. They should all be under Riodinidae according to [CoL](https://www.catalogueoflife.org/?taxonKey=9249Y) but are proposed to resolved to NULL higher...
The synomisation to the genus Parage on this might not be correct. In [CoL](https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/92J5D), Parage is the accepted genus and has Lasiommata Westwood, 1841 as a synonym, however this is...
Botanical names should be without (publication) year: ``` { "count": 11465, "verbatim_kingdom": "Plantae", "verbatim_phylum": "null", "verbatim_class": "Equisetopsida", "verbatim_order": "null", "verbatim_family": "Crassulaceae", "verbatim_genus": "null", "verbatim_species": "null", "verbatim_infra": "null", "verbatim_rank": "Species", "verbatim_verbatimRank":...
Is there actually a genus "Gen" or is it some dirty data that slipped through? ``` { "count": 29406, "verbatim_kingdom": "Animalia", "verbatim_phylum": "Arthropoda", "verbatim_class": "Ostracoda", "verbatim_order": "Podocopida", "verbatim_family": "Macrocyprididae", "verbatim_genus":...
Is it correct that this genus now should not include author and year? (proposed_acceptedScientificName) ``` { "count": 99898, "verbatim_kingdom": "Animalia", "verbatim_phylum": "Arthropoda", "verbatim_class": "Insecta", "verbatim_order": "Diptera", "verbatim_family": "Culicidae", "verbatim_genus": "Anopheles",...