Markus Döring

all normalised values would be great. Is there a list of them? "spec. nov.", "comb. nov." "nom. nov." would be perfect

found it: http://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/srsStats | TaxStatus | DocCount | | --- | --- | | NULL | 222061 | | Comb. | 1 | | comb. nov. | 5268 | |...

basically all these values indicate its a "new" name and we should show the treatment and add the name to the backbone. Just nomen nudum needs special attention. It must...

Yes, we cannot insert new combinations (or stat nov) easily without effecting the existing taxonomy. If we want to add them to the backbone quickly without reprocessing the entire taxonomy...

This needs a major refactoring of the service to have access to all parents, but yes it is needed at some stage. We should also include the entire classification regardless...

Apparently, this looks bad: http://api.gbif.org/v1/parser/name?name=Oinophila%20v-flava

What exactly would be the desired match in this case? Sounds more like an occurrence identification interpretation issue than strictly species matching in case "group" is meant to refer to...

I agree matching to the genus would be best in this case. It would require to understand the meaning of "group" obviously. A hint in TaxonRank would be good. Searching...

Basically I agree that WoRMS LSIDs are **name** identifiers and thus belong into `dwc:scientificNameID`, not taxonID or taxonConceptID. DwC unfortunately still is inconsistent in its taxon/name/usage identifier documentation. `dwc:Taxon` IS...

> the fact that there is a one-to-one relationship between the WoRMS LSID and names does not make the LSID an identifier a for a Name, but an identifier for...