animalPlaceOfContact

[rebipp]

animalPlaceOfContact

[fonturbel]

This needs a further revision from a specialist

[carmensspires]

As we are trying to make inferences about which floral visitors would have the potential to be pollinators, I believe that we should specify in the definition the parts of the flower that are touched.

Definition proposals:
A list (concatenated and separated) of places (i.e. body parts) of the animal body that contacts anther and stigma of its interacting partner during an Interaction.

Or

A list (concatenated and separated) of places (i.e. body parts) of the animal body that contacts anthers and stigma during an Interaction.

Or

A list (concatenated and separated) of places (i.e. body parts) of the animal body that contacts reproductive parts of the flower during an Interaction.

[zedomel]

@carmensspires I don't know if we need to include the parts of the flower in the definition.

It will restrict the usage of the term to only floral parts, opposed to allow a generic usage where the animal touches another parts of the plant (leaf, trunk, etc).

By the way, the floral parts when touched must be specified using the term plantPlaceOfContact(#31). Using the term placePlaceOfContact one can specify values as: anther or stigma.

[Mardiore]

If the intention is to record interactions (regardless of whether they result in pollination or not) I agree that it is better not to mention specific parts of the plant, such as floral structures.

[anselmoeco]

I agree with @zedomel and @Mardiore. However, if we want to at least refer to the interactions between animals and plants, we could then use something like: "A list (concatenated and separated) of places (i.e. body parts) of the animal body that contacts the plant partner during an Interaction".

[zedomel]

New definition: A list (concatenated and separated) of animal's body parts that contacts the plant

Removed partner during an Interaction since it the interaction with a plant is implicit here (Interaction class)