How to handle infraspecificEpithets

[peterdesmet]

How to handle infraspecificEpithets

[qgroom]

We don't have taxon rank in our specimen data either and I will find out tomorrow it GBIF can figure out the rank. I'll let you know what I find out.

[LienReyserhove]

The name parser of GBIF can figure out the rank of the taxon in some cases, e.g. in case of a species, a form, a cultivar, a subspecies or an infrasubspecies. It does not specifiy the rank above the species level (strange enough).

When the plant names are specifified as Genus specificEpithet infraspecificEpithet, name parsing works fine, so I assume name matching will be fine too?

Why not to provide a taxonRank for the infraspecific names? It is usefull information, even though the name is not 100% correct...?

[peterdesmet]

The GBIF name parser != name matching. The name parser just reads a string and tries to figure out how to parse it. It is independent from the backbone.

Also, I think the parser will only provide a specific infraspecific rank if that information is included in the name string. Compare: http://api.gbif.org/v1/parser/name?name=Sinapis%20alba%20dissecta&name=Sinapis%20alba%20var.%20dissecta

If var. is included in the name, the name parser will indicate rankMarker var., otherwise infrasp.. Not sure if this is the same result you get from rgbif?

For infraspecific ranks, I would add the valid rank infraspecificname (see http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/gbif/rank_2015-04-24.xml)

[LienReyserhove]

I get the same result from rgbif. In this case, all these species are considered to be infrasp
Good suggestion to use infraspecificname.