Issue 18381

Oligochaeta (animal) linked to Oligochaeta (plant genus)

Reporter: rdmpage
Assignee: jlegind
Type: Feedback
Summary: Oligochaeta (animal) linked to Oligochaeta (plant genus)
Description: Most of the records for the plant genus _Oligochaeta_ (A.P. de Candolle) K.H.E. Koch, 1843 are for worms (oligochaetes). Looks like these occurrences simply have scientificName as "Oligochaeta" with no other information (e.g., no information on whether it's an animal or a plant).
Priority: Unassessed
Status: InProgress
Created: 2016-04-07 14:13:48.685
Updated: 2016-10-28 16:08:04.402

Created: 2016-04-07 17:45:03.187
Updated: 2016-04-07 17:45:03.187
Unfortunately the class is not in Catalogue of Life:

There are quite a few cases like this causing problems for GBIF occurrences. Vertebrata, Heteropoda - all being a genus but also an entirely different, usually higher taxon. Usually in a different kingdom.

Often these higher taxa are not included in the backbone, so even for occurrences with a higher classification we interpret them wrongly.
And often the reason why we do not include them in the backbone is that the are non Linnean ranks like subclass or superfamily, see POR-2781

Created: 2016-04-07 17:54:11.315
Updated: 2016-04-07 17:54:11.315
I will add the class Oligochaeta as a synonym of the annelids class Clitellata in our patch list.
CoL uses Clitellata as the only other phylum in Annelida next to Polychaeta. It also includes the orders Haplotaxida, Lumbriculida & Moniligastrida which are orders of Oligochaeta:

Created: 2016-04-07 18:14:41.038
Updated: 2016-04-07 18:14:41.038

Created: 2016-04-14 15:04:20.865
Updated: 2016-04-14 15:05:53.432
Oligochaeta without ranks gets you the plant genus:

With rank given you can get to the worm class now:

Also close ranks like SUBCLASS or PHYLUM work:

Comment: [], [] is this something for the content team to follow up on? It would be great if the publishers of these doubtful records would be contacted and they would add a kingdom or other higher classification if they could.
Created: 2016-10-24 16:26:02.516
Updated: 2016-10-24 16:26:02.516

Created: 2016-10-24 17:32:35.745
Updated: 2016-10-24 17:32:35.745
Thanks Markus.

How about [] and I write to the publishers of the invertebrates datasets below that contain doubtful records and ask them to add a kingdom or other higher classification?

Scottish Environment Protection Agency - River macroinvertebrate data ... (6,194 doubtful records)
Published by: UK National Biodiversity Network:

Macroinvertebrate abunda… (299 doubtful records)
Published by PANGAEA:

Invertebrates Collection… (166 doubtful records)
Published by GBIF-Sweden:

Clitellata - SMF (102 doubtful records)
Published by Senckenberg:

Comment: Thanks Kyle, that would be good!
Created: 2016-10-24 22:41:05.712
Updated: 2016-10-24 22:41:05.712

Created: 2016-10-24 22:49:44.974
Updated: 2016-10-24 22:49:44.974
Maybe you could also get in touch with these which seem to have worms only and missing classifications:

EPA'S EMAP Database (1732 records)

Artdata (1359 records)

Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre - Other datasets (1036 records)

Here are all occurrence datasets:

When I see that long list of datasets I think we should flag all records that do not provide any classification at all.
[~cgendreau], how about we add missing classification to the new (occurrence) validator?

Comment: Publishers contacted
Created: 2016-10-28 16:08:04.402
Updated: 2016-10-28 16:08:04.402