Sub- or superlevels for taxonomic ranks in GBIF backbone

[LienReyserhove]

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 superclasses or subhyla. Is there a reason for this, or did I miss something very obvious?

[mdoering]

Yes, this is by design as the Catalogue of Life (CoL), which we use as the main source for the upper hierarchy and other major sources, only provide that level of detail. I am working on a new system for the CoL where we hope to include more ranks, see https://github.com/Sp2000/colplus/issues/30

It is recognized that we miss some very well known taxa like Radiolaria, Marsupials, Auchenorrhyncha or even subclass Aves in newer classifications by restricting the tree to the classic Linnean ranks so eventually this has to change.

[mdoering]

There are some often reported missing taxa that exist in occurrences but fall through the major Linnean ranks that should be included in the Backbone:

• Radiolaria
• Oligochaeta
• Vertebrata
• Actinopterygii

See also https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/485 and https://github.com/gbif/checklistbank/issues/108