A typical issue that is reflected all though the 281 entries in this Thread
If we DON’T list them then when the time, money and a coder comes we will have to begin all over again
If we DO list them, then we all get bored with the whole idea. I used one of these today, it was the wrong one, as there are NO Other Observations. Should we care?
Yes, we should!
I’ve just spent time researching this obs for a long comment.
BUT I then couldn’t agree your ID as there is no sign of Gastropoda preceding it. I wondered why and now I know.
I resisted adding the ‘correct’ pulmonata; agreeing would make no difference to the issue, which does need a solution
I’m confused - not that unusual! I added an ID as part of the project to give Likely IDs to obs without them (November 2024). I added the genus Cochlicella, choosing from the drop down. But it’s not linked to others with either genus or species IDs - except for one!
Not sure what’s going on here. I did try a couple of test obs (deleted) using the other version of Cochlicella in the dictionary. Any advice? I will come back and try again though.
Yes that is odd it has only linked to observations (the one) that was identified at genus rather than species level.
There is another Pulmonata anomaly reported just above. Related?.
I’ve just added a lichen Normandina pulchella. I eventually found the other observations of it, but only once I’d added my obs. Before adding the obs, searching on Normandina pulchella brought up one obs of something else while several observations none of which were Normandina came up when I searched on Normandina genus. This seems very odd.
.
The anomaly is still in place even though I’ve added my observation and even though the other obs appear as thumbnails within that obs in the normal way.
Did you search via the dictionary i.e. going to family and looking for genera or similar or alternatively try a search in the search box (which is far from ideal)
Well, I think I just kept trying both genus and species names in the search box.
I did that both before and after adding my obs.
But now it’s all fine, searching for both genus and species just now came up with exactly what it should! I cannot explain that but it’s good to find it functioning as it should. 
Just briefly (I’ve been elsewhere). You chose the wrong ID,
Go UP one level and you’ll see there are 36 Obs of Cochlicella genus
this is fairly frequent problem and is listed ‘somewhere’ by ‘someone’ above. The suggestion is that YOUR choice might be a sub-genus. who knows? HOW are we supposed to know?
I often do a test post https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/view/observation/890158/(deletion tomorrow)
When this happens - you know, like six similar choices in the DripDown menu and I usually report it like this
There are SOME clues in the Master Index (three Sub-genera) Species Dictionary | Natural History Museum <<Klik
Here Beautiful indeed | Observation | UK and Ireland | iSpot Nature (good work)
I could not replicate the (your) problem but this serves to remind anyone that names separated by a l vertical slash are showing known synonyms - each would be safe to use as the ID.
Thanks for visiting the issue. I could not replicate the problem either when trying later, as I said above.
But I definitely couldn’t find the other obs when I looked for observations before adding mine (using the search box in sidebar) and when I tried the same search method after. Adding ID was fine, normal.
Have followed your thread to another obs intended to be IDed to genus and have added my agreement to your recent ID, with desired result.
Have tried to remedy my wrong choice for Miked’s snail by choosing again, targeting the one you identified with the red arrows. Sincerely hope that one will be right when/if it gains the Likely banner.
.
Replying to self: seems to have worked okay now.
Just in case Stigmella the fungus versus Stigmella the moth hasn’t been flagged, see recent post: Stigmella microtheriella? | Observation | UK and Ireland | iSpot Nature
.
Five Stigmella leaf mines carry a Likely Banner for the fungus: https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/species-dictionary/BMSSYS0000051632/stigmella/observations
Given the number of duplicate names for organisms in different domains, is there any move to restrict this practice at least for newly named taxon?
I have added it to the list of items to fix but it is a very long list and this particular issue has been raised over many years and no easy fix has been found even though it seems very easy to sort out.
See article 18 and particularly recommendation 18A.2 of the draft BioCode. But BioCode doesn’t seem to be getting any traction.
Hi Miked, my question related to the world wide context (not ispot, for I know you have it on the list) and L’guy has now commented ( thanks Lavateraguy).