Proposed-dictionary testing

EVERYONE and ANYONE can now HELP test the proposed New Dictionary
Just go to the NHM Site and try the name in a search.
Since the beginning of time (here) there have been serious issues with the Dictionary
See, for example, where the iSpot name is a simple misspell

Go HERE Species Dictionary | Natural History Museum and TEST any new name.
You MUST check that your proposed name is up to date and accepted in OTHER sites.
IF the NHM version is faulty or not up-to-date, WE need to know HERE in the Forum - I am collating new (proposed-) Dictionary issues.

NO need to report any that are ‘good’.

Currently it is ONLY Dictionary names, Scientific ones, that are widely being tested.
There are old and new TAXONOMIC issues which will have to be faced, In fact are holding up the iSpot release.
The testing team will highlight some of those in the coming weeks
Please help with Dictionary testing and PLEASE continue to add the tag absent1 to any current Observations with a Dictionary Issue.
You can ask here for one of us to test any name in the proposed new Dictionary

Not sure what I’m doing here and need advice, please. I commented on

as I think incorrect id and made a suggestion, following Sherlock’s (2018) Key to the Earthworms of Britain and Ireland. However, the new name isn’t in the dictionary but it’s in the NHM dictionary.
From the Key:
Bimastos rubidus (Savigny, 1826); formerly Dendrodrilus, changed to Bimastos by Csuzdi et al. (2017).
How do I respond to the comment or will someone in the testing team do it? What about the tag?

the way.
Everything is fine. No frets. The iSpot dictionary is about 13 years old, it contains thousands of currently accepted (correct) names and hundreds of out of date ones.
It is sometimes difficult to know which is which because Taxonomists are constantly in the struggle-zone, deciding which is the correct one. When they decide, it may take quite a while for lists to be updated.

This is the way (Bill threw me with his inventive spelling)
First try the web with the name, it will usually result in a Wiki response, IF the spelling is correct.
Then, if it is an acceptable spelling, go here Search and type it in.
Here y’ go Bimastos rubidus (Savigny, 1826)
Look in the left panel
Dozens of old names. The hard part is finding out which IS in the iSpot Dictionary
In this case Dendrobaena rubida (Savigny, 1826) the clue is often the species name rubida/rubidus.
It is a specialised art - finding the right one, so we are sometime left with having to ID to genus (if it’s there - and it isn’t) or family Lumbricidae, which usually is.

Then we write in the panel ‘NOT in the Dictionary’ and add the Tag absent1
I am the guy who can test the new dictionary. See this?

Sometimes the CoL (the Global Dictionary) tells us all we need Bimastos rubidus (Savigny, 1826) | COL
(Appropriately) WoRMS is often the place
WoRMS - World Register of Marine Species - Dendrobaena rubida (Savigny, 1826) for confirmation.

10/10 for you, I’d say! Thanks!
The next question is what do I reply to Bill’s comment? Is it enough to refer him to this Forum thread? Should he change anything re his id?

I would let him respond, I have left a comment there which refers to this.
Bill watches his tracker, as you know, so he will add the ID and I will probably agree.
If he does not, blame the tracker for being stupid and cluttered with stuff we DON’T want. We are experimenting with the tracker in the Test Site.
All will be well one day.

Thanks, Derek! Message says post has to be more characters so please look at my fish :slight_smile:

Not sure f this is relevant……choosing the common name Sulphur tuft from iSpot’s drop down dictionary generates the scientific name Hypholoma fasciculare var. fasciculare - see:
Choosing the scientific name Hypholoma fasciculare links to the above var observations see:

thanks, It is VERY relevant
I will add a test post tomorrow
See a similar one today
It is not quite the same issue because Hypholoma fasciculare (Huds.) P. Kumm is still the Accepted name (in the New (Proposed) Dictionary
None of us should rely on the Common name menu - check each time you uses it.

Much the same with Fly Agaric and ‘var’

Thanks again.
I will find a Fly Ag, observation by a current user** who uses the Changes Tracker (not many of those) and ask for the tag Taxonomy1. I will explain why in the comment.
One hopes that the Dictionary Team is watching this space or will look to it when required.

**Luckily it’s one of the Fabulous eight
The other is with the Curator - you will have seen my comment there.
But here is one of his where I flagged the issue last year

Am I right in my supposition (in the comment) here?

BOTH the Common name menu (Harlequin Ladybird)
and the Sc. one get you the ‘correct scientific name’
There are 3 additional forms in BOTH Dictionaries - it is unlikely anyone would choose one of those by mistake.
Harmonia axyridis form succinea is the third in line and is safe to choose.
there are over 130 of those in iSpot

Always assuming that Harmonia axyridis has not been tampered with recently by Taxonomists, then all is well with the Harlequin.

those not familiar with ‘what’s going on’ here can access the Proposed Dictionary and check such things
Only a few people have been given access to the iSpot Test Site. It is there that I can test differences between each dictionary.
I am interested but I am not leading this lengthy and pretty hazardous expedition.
The Leader would like to see examples of where the current dictionary or taxonomy is wrong or up for discussion.
YOU can add a comment IN your actual Observation then add either of two tags taxonomy1 or, in the case of a CORRECT name being absent, the tag absent1.
Significant issues ought to be aired here, in this thread. MUCH less so, the insignificant ones. and PLEASE stick to the Thread Title Proposed-dictionary testing
One of the issues currently being investigated is the DIFFERENT outcome between a Common name choice and the Scientific one. There are plenty of these and, I suppose, the Leader would like to find them.

‘We’ have no control of the Dictionary Menu but might be able to influence the NHMs Index Curator.
iSpots NEW (proposed) Dictionary is a mirror of the NHM Index so ANYONE can test new and accepted names any time.
I can produce comparison Screen prints from the Test site

should you be vaguely interested in complexities Go here
Somehow Andy managed get the NEW name accepted (it is impossible to recreate)…
NOTE however that that browser links are all to Hygrocybe psittacina var. psittacina.
I tried to recreate it here

For the sake of a New (proposed) Dictionary test can someone MOVE the Banner to the INVALID ID panel here please
Agree to Gliophorus psittacinus please, this is the up-to-date name in the New Dictionary

Remember that Chris is trying to get some of the unlinked identifications to link up to the new dictionary. This would be a once off running of code and no excuse for people not to use the dropdown. I mention it here as running this code may cause some confusion with unlinked things suddenly appearing as linked on the test site but it is not yet clear if the code will work or how many can be properly linked up by using it (certainly won’t be all of them).

All the Valid (new names) but Unlinked ones become valid in the test site - those that I have so far tested.
BUT if they don’t have a likely banner in the current site they won’t have it in the test site.
That means we may have to add agreements to them, once the new dictionary is installed
All the more reason why either of the two tags absent1 or taxonomy1 is added where there is an issue.
I have done a number of tests and screen prints, see the before and after one above
I am interested to see how the Test Site handles old names with the Banner
Honestly I’d like the above Observation to have the Likely Banner - please fix it, so that we can see the result in the test site…

The repointing script took over 4.5 hours to run but finished with 7238 records in the UK community still un-pointed to dictionary records. This will almost certainly be down to spelling, but that’s still a fairly low number out of 500k+ identifications!

Last year we ran a few project trying to collect and correct misspellings and un-pointed (Invalid IDs), we did several hundred, I suspect over 500,
We will begin again in the Winter and do more. Mike was able to filter them for us.
Here’s a little taste, there are lots more - the labours of just a few here! found-observations

Can someone add the Likely Banner here please, for the purpose of New (proposed) Dictionary testing.
It is the correct ID but NOT in the current dictionary, only the New one.