Yes, it’s definitely maddening as I’d been reading about the “agg” and “sensu lato”, neither of which feature in your visual.
Thx for pointing it out, Dejay.
Indeed.
From that link I find entries for
| Name | Recommended name | Rank | Name ID (TVK) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lasius | Lasius Fabricius, 1804 | Genus | NBNSYS0000134375 |
| Lasius Fabricius, 1804 | Genus | NHMSYS0000876219 | |
| What’s the difference? | |||
| Similarly, what’s the difference between these entries? | |||
| Name | Recommended name | Rank | Name ID (TVK) |
| — | — | — | — |
| Lasius niger | Species aggregate | NHMSYS0000873238 | |
| Lasius niger | Lasius niger | Species sensu lato | NBNSYS0100003681 |
| Lasius niger (Linnaeus) | Lasius niger (Linnaeus, 1758) | Species | NBNSYS0000009391 |
| Lasius niger (Linnaeus, 1758) | Species | NHMSYS0000873237 | |
| Lasius niger (Linnaeus, 1758) | Lasius niger (Linnaeus, 1758) | Species | NBNSYS0100003682 |
| What we might also ask is “Are these differences relevant to iSpot?” |
Minor appearance but significant.
Differences in Presentation (attribution) of authors is becoming a serious issue for Dictionary managers
Lasius niger (Linnaeus) is now unacceptable
whereas
Lasius niger (Linnaeus, 1758) is currently more correct
Even the brackets, or lack of, have meaning and purpose
Lasius Fabricius, 1804
I am glad I am not a Dictionary curator!
Most of the iSpot dictionary issues are inherited from the NHM. My request is that someone in iSpot Coding could make it easier for us by adding a suffix like
Another
It IS important that we note these in the forum - there is no other record of these anomalies.
Process mentioned in the Monthly Report
‘We’ do need users to register in this Thread any Dictionary issues but please try not to duplicate them
Best to do a screen print if possible - two entries here and confusion in the Drop-down menu
Nothing seems to ‘done’ but eventually the Dictionary Curators will HAVE to rationalise and ONE DAY our own menu will show WHICH is which @miked (something of a priority bit of coding?)
I don’t know if it is me or iSpot but I don’t seem to be able to select the beetle genus Sphaeroderma without getting diverted into fungi.
See
Interestingly, the verifyer on iRecord has had the same problem!
This is an interesting issue, lots of people mention problems with the ispot dictionary but it is sometimes tricky to tell if it is a problem with the ispot dictionary or the UKSI dictionary which the ispot dictionary is based on which itself needs a load of tidying up and sorting out.
The basic issue is that these amalgamated species dictionaries are built from numerous others which deal with individual species groups and to me it is a wonder they work at all! There are loads of opportunities for duplications, using different numbers of sub levels, leaving bits in from branches that are redone and many other minor or major problems.
There needs to be a way to feed back these problems when they are spotted but to the right person. The right person might be the specialist in a small clade of beetles who has accidentially got a spare bit in their part of the overall tree which is then amalgamated by other person into a larger clade of beetles, then into all beetles then into UKSI then over onto ispot/irecord/NBN etc. Fixing it on ispot and irecord and NBN is a waste of time if the error is simply is put back as soon as the dictionary is updated again.
All this could be avoided if scientists would agree not to duplicate the names of genera. Oenanthe is another one, shared by plants and birds.
Thanks, Derek. As usual, you’ve cracked it. I’ll re-identify my ‘fungus’.
The problem is that zoologists have agreed among themselves not to duplicate and botanists have agreed among themselves not to duplicate.
.
But they have not agreed across the disciplines.
When I say Zoologists I mean The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN )
And Botanists means The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants*
1 Like
The Bacteriological Code is also involved - Catenococcus, Rhodococcus and Spirulina are triplicated.
(PDF) The problem of hemihomonyms and the on-line hemihomonyms database (HHDB) (researchgate.net)
Interesting that there are examples of names being used in three different disciplines. Their proposed solution looks eminently sensible to me.
(They also mention Oenanthe, one which I mentioned above.)
More than half this ‘problem’ can be solved if a coder gained access to the iSpot Dictionary menu.display
It needs a few additions, like <Sub-genus or. <not viable or, <this one or,<species agg.
Simply removing those which are not viable in the iSpot Browser would do it
And the browser itself needs a display-review
(one of those is a Species aggregate - how would we know?)
And Non-recommended synonyms for Lasius are: Lasius…Dohhhh
I think we few realise and accept the Master NHM Index has these errors but we get loads of Knowledgeables registering who leave quickly when they encounter our Dictionary and you HAVE to feel sorry for a Primary school observer (Sense) who adds Insect or Fish - yes?
1 Like
The lovely genus Nemesia also turns out to be Flower.
Beautiful indeed
Nemesia affinis, Cape Point - 2007 | Observation | Southern Africa | iSpot Nature. A pity it attracts so little interest in iSpotZA.
Attributed to Vent (or Audouin) as it is also (probably) a Genus of spiders in the family Nemesiidae
Can you find either in iSpot UK? I failed…though the spider seems unlikely
Only a total of 12 UK Nemesia. Peachysteve has a bit of a tale on this one:
Ha! you owe me 42 minutes for reading and agreeing where appropriate
It is SO obvious that few users are looking at Other Obs when doing their own or adding an ID
We all need to help confirm IDs and build up other’s reputations. There are thousands of Likely IDs without a single agreement.
1 Like