Issue 18263

Species interpretation issue - Fungi species taxon-match-none

Reporter: jlegind
Assignee: mblissett
Type: Bug
Summary: Species interpretation issue - Fungi species taxon-match-none
Priority: Major
Resolution: Fixed
Status: Closed
Created: 2016-02-25 12:39:47.06
Updated: 2016-02-26 11:55:32.076
Resolved: 2016-02-26 11:55:31.978
Description: {quote}Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to report a problem with datasets sent to GBIF. These are from the
Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Bourges (France /

I'm surprised to see that published data are totally different from the original sent to GBIF. For example, I'm the author of the dataset called "
Collection botanique Letendre (abbé) (BOUM)", and I can ensure that all names of species were fully completed (genus, species, author and date), but all appear as "Unknow species" in GBIF ! ; see :

I also observed that a lot of original names of species were modified erroneously.

Please, could you tell me what happens with our data shared with GBIF ?
Yours sincerely,
Franck MADDI{quote}
Scientific name (Diploschistes actinostomus) resolves while the supplied kingdom rank name does not (Fungi, Bartling, 1830).

Markus Döring: we “just” need to reprocess all data in prod at some stage]]>

Author: mblissett
Created: 2016-02-25 13:27:36.423
Updated: 2016-02-25 13:27:36.423
Since this has lots of occurrences in France I'll deploy my fixed occurrence-cli and recrawl it. (France crosses 0° so shouldn't be reinterpreted before that).


Created: 2016-02-25 14:20:38.648
Updated: 2016-02-25 14:20:38.648
Assigning to Matt as the nub lookup is fixed and deployed:

Author: mblissett
Created: 2016-02-26 11:55:32.006
Updated: 2016-02-26 11:55:32.006
I reinterpreted all the occurrences from this publisher, which should have solved this.

There are a few recently published names in the example dataset, which will resolve to higher taxa until the name is present in the GBIF backbone.