Markus Döring
Markus Döring
well, I reckon we can move that also if wanted
I spot dwc:genericName in the clients code. That is not part of the matching parameters and I was wondering if we want to add that too? It is not exactly...
The genus author is simply not known. That happens quite often in the older COL data as the previous format could not handle that. We will add many of those...
Where do that screenshot come from? these are all not real dwc terms...
we keep all downloads - but these dont (yet) have DOIs to cite and track
http://api.checklistbank.org/export
Yes, this is indeed needed and not nice. I am not sure if it is possible to open the same lucene index with multiple readers in the old Lucene 5...
In COL there are 2 accepted Hyla genera from ITIS, both with species. Maybe that it the reason: https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/9910/taxon/4ZYM https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/9910/taxon/4ZYL The problematic authorship comes from Plazi: https://www.gbif.org/species/176230819
>DEBUG [07-02 02:23:20,332+0000] [main] org.gbif.checklistbank.nub.NubBuilder: process dataset c35887df ACCEPTED GENUS Hyla QUOYI – HYLA PRASINA CASE DEBUG [07-02 02:23:20,333+0000] [main] org.gbif.checklistbank.nub.NubBuilder: Updating Hyla from source Hyla QUOYI – HYLA PRASINA...
There are likely many more cases like this one coming from COL, see issue linked above