the new Global Dictionary is here https://www.catalogueoflife.org/
And this is the entry for the darter
Sympetrum striolatum (Charpentier, 1840) | COL
and for the Lizard
Podarcis cretensis (Wettstein, 1952) | COL
.
iSpot currently uses this Catalogue of Life : 2008 Annual Checklist : Search
neither are in that one, nor are any seaweeds and that’s not the least of it!
Chris Valentine (iSpot Coder) is trying hard to Code in the new version but has run into several pretty serious hurdles.
PS
There are still no seaweed Species in the New CoL (Global Dictionary)
COL | The Catalogue of Life
Thanks for responding, but that doesn’t answer my question.
Perhaps the answer is not known.
I don’t know the answer. But I can guess that when new dictionary comes on stream, IDs will be amended in the way we have seen with the UK dictionary??
.
But meantime, for global spots I’ve been adding the nearest ID I can find, to be sure it’s valid and searchable on some basis. Example:
It’s Sechelleptus seychellarum but only genus is available, Sechelleptus.
.
Should I change this method and add the invalid ID do you think?
I didn’t take notice if any ‘amendments’ of uk names made did so for species names not taken from the dropdown.
In the meantime I am following my own practice for my posts of adding the correct name.
I think we may need to wait for guidance from ‘above’, or wait and see what happens when the upgrade comes on line.
As different ispotters take different approaches there could then be data to inform us what did happen to our posts.
The bottom line may be ‘On verra’.
So, yes. On verra, indeed 
Oh, sorry, I thought the links to the modern Col did that for you. They are clearly in the Dictionary and Chris’s code will surely add the new ID, validate it and add the rollover icon to explain.
Such Observations ought to have the tag absent1 so that we can easily find them all and make certain that any ‘Banners’ are in the right places. Some, like those in the comment, will have a second ID to Genus or Family that hold the Banner and which maybe locked in place
Thanks. If ‘surely’ comes to pass, all will be well.
Looks like I should, after reading what’s below. So went back to Giant! and was in process of adding an INVALID but more accurate ID when I came upon the taxon Rubanostreptus seychellarum, which is listed here MilliBase - Sechelleptus Mauriès, 1980 as synonymised name. Tagging it absent1 meantime - tell me if that does not make sense.
Just to give another example I stumbled across.
This is a southern grey shrike (as proposed by shrike07) but Lanius meridionalis isn’t in the dictionary.
IVY (Helix hedera) has at least 1 bad ID in the dictionary (as well as Hedera helix subsp. helix)
If you type Common common Ivy into the box you get the sub species of which there are 50 out of a total of over 500. It is TIME this was addressed.
.
The one to choose
Thans dj, (as this was meant for my D last May) but I don’t think I’ll add another ID, even though there are no ‘other obs’ appended. Hedera is well known.
I am sure that the team at OU are working on the Dictionary and Browser issues; They can only do what they can with the time that they have.
(Barnacles)
I keep finding these, some in obscure places.
The ONLY record we have of the specific ‘problems’ is here.One day someone will address the issue and will have a lengthy task finding examples
If you find one, please add it to this Thread - no need to illustrate it
Going by the comment, the initial identification failed and the poster added a revised identification. Interestingly, the initial identification has since been corrected possibly by a dictionary update. I’m surprised because the observation is recent 2023 and I didn’t realise they were being corrected: 7-spot ladybird | Observation | UK and Ireland | iSpot Nature
That’s an interesting one. The genus name seems to have been corrected so, as you say, the initial ID could have stood.
Baffling. Like the continuing tendency of the location map to decide where it thinks the observation ought to be.
Sometimes, iSpot can be hard work…
I am assuming what happened here was that the dictionary update found a species name that had not been selected from the dictionary so it connected it to the dictionary automatically. It did not matter if the initial unconnected name was correct or not (if it was not ‘correct’ then it would have updated it), the main thing was that it was not connected.
I think the dictionary update code besides updating names also tries to connect to dictionary where items were not connected. However it is certainly not perfect at doing this so you may find instances where it has worked and others were it has not (don’t use this as an excuse not to select from dropdown!)
1 Like
What is amazing in that post, is that the rollover icon reveals a Waxcap mushroom was originally chosen (somehow)
That the Nov 23 update code used the Common Name for the corrected ID is rare
Most likely the species in the rollover code somehow picked up the wrong name, will mention to Chris.
When the relevant (new dictionary) import script has to revert to species name matching (because it couldn’t find the matching NBN key), its not clever enough to consider anything but the name and if the name matches, it will use the first record it comes across. But by the time it gets to this stage, the new dictionary’s taxonomy tree will have been created so in theory it could be a little more intelligent than just looking for the name.
A different sort of dictionary issue highlighted here:
It’s to do with breeds. The NHM has a list, which has explained to me why there are ponies, cattle and sheep listed in the iSpot dictionary. Now I know some geese are, too.