-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Only include species #35
Comments
It is probably mostly relevant for plants as is clear from the spreadsheet, where cultivars/subspecies can differ in invasiveness. As we discussed yesterday, I am ok with that provided it is performed in the flow to the unified (so kept in the original checklist) and it is documented. Genus level PRA's are indeed not acceptable in practice. I checked all non-manual issues:
|
Thanks Tim! |
Thinking about it ... This is a feedback from Quentin and Sonia from Zagreb |
Leaving subspecies in will be challenging, because the ideal way to search or filter for occurrences on GBIF is by Not aggregating them is a hard choice too, because it means they will never be considered for any analyses or emerging species, except those where the SPECIES is also listed in one of the source checklists (e.g. both I suggest we add SUBSPECIES to the list of taxa to verify, with the suggestion to lump under the species. There we can - for each taxon - decide if we want to lump them or not. By default (i.e. unverified) they will not be included. It then becomes a deliberate choice and we are aware of what we are throwing away. Would that be OK? |
It basically boils down to: how big is the net you want to use for searching occurrences. In the result set you will still be able to see what subspecies/synonyms are included. |
It's a bit more than that. At least for plants we will get completely the wrong results if we model using the species data, rather than the subspecies data. All these have alien supspecies and common native subspecies. If we select at the species level most of the records will be for the native taxon. Armeria maritima subsp. elongata and many more I suspect |
So, I think we solved this. The answer is: no, we need infraspecific ones in unified checklist. Issue to be closed? |
Yes, thanks for cleaning up issues @damianooldoni. |
The checklist currently contains:
For a unified checklist, I think it makes sense to aggregate this information on SPECIES only, because:
This would only affect 5% of the taxa (i.e. the non-SPECIES):
I've created a spreadsheet of the taxa that are affected.
@timadriaens @SoVDH @qgroom would you be OK with this choice?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: