Regression for Sedum rupestre Vill., 1789

[tobiasgf]

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": "null",
  "verbatim_scientificName": "Sedum rupestre L., 1753 [nom. et typ. cons.]",
  "verbatim_generic": "null",
  "verbatim_author": "null",
  "current_kingdom": "Plantae",
  "current_phylum": "Tracheophyta",
  "current_class": "Magnoliopsida",
  "current_order": "Saxifragales",
  "current_family": "Crassulaceae",
  "current_genus": "Sedum",
  "current_subGenus": "null",
  "current_species": "Sedum rupestre",
  "current_scientificName": "Sedum rupestre Vill., 1789",
  "current_acceptedScientificName": "Sedum rupestre Vill., 1789",
  "current_kingdomKey": 6,
  "current_phylumKey": 7707728,
  "current_classKey": 220,
  "current_orderKey": 7219248,
  "current_familyKey": 2406,
  "current_genusKey": 7801254,
  "current_subGenusKey": "null",
  "current_speciesKey": 7768497,
  "current_taxonKey": 7768497,
  "current_acceptedTaxonKey": 7768497,
  "proposed_kingdom": "Plantae",
  "proposed_phylum": "Tracheophyta",
  "proposed_class": "Magnoliopsida",
  "proposed_order": "Saxifragales",
  "proposed_family": "Crassulaceae",
  "proposed_genus": "Sedum",
  "proposed_subGenus": "null",
  "proposed_species": "Sedum rupestre",
  "proposed_scientificName": "Sedum rupestre Hacq. ex Nyman, 1879",
  "proposed_acceptedScientificName": "Sedum rupestre Hacq. ex Nyman, 1879",
  "proposed_kingdomKey": 6,
  "proposed_phylumKey": 7707728,
  "proposed_classKey": 220,
  "proposed_orderKey": 7219248,
  "proposed_familyKey": 2406,
  "proposed_genusKey": 7801254,
  "proposed_subGenusKey": "null",
  "proposed_speciesKey": 7599816,
  "proposed_taxonKey": 7599816,
  "proposed_acceptedTaxonKey12727": 7599816,
  "_key": 1843,
  "changes": {
    "speciesKey": true,
    "scientificName": true,
    "acceptedScientificName": true,
    "taxonKey": true
  },
  "reviewed": false
}

[mdoering]

there is source for confusion here:

"verbatim_scientificName": "Sedum rupestre L., 1753 [nom. et typ. cons.]", "current_scientificName": "Sedum rupestre Vill., 1789", "proposed_scientificName": "Sedum rupestre Hacq. ex Nyman, 1879",

4 species in COL alone, all of which are synonyms: https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/search?q=Sedum%20rupestre&rank=species

The doubtfully accepted species Hacq. ex Nyman, 1879 comes from IPNI: https://www.gbif.org/species/104253919

There are even more authorships floating around: https://www.checklistbank.org/namesindex/6177632/group

Vill. and Haq. seem to nearly only appear in IPNI, so maybe we could ignore them or make them also a synonym in the patch list - which then just needs to be maintained in the future.

[tobiasgf]

I was mainly commenting on the fact that the year (1789) was included in the name, which is not common practice for botanical names. But surely a confusion of names in several regards :-)