taxonRank categories are not standardised
stijnvanhoey opened this issue · comments
I did a count of the different taxonrank fields, checking the current names in the taxonrank column
| taxonRank | kingdom | count |
|---|---|---|
| Cultivar | Plantae | 7 |
| Form | Plantae | 3 |
| Generic hybrid | Plantae | 3 |
| Genus | Plantae | 26410 |
| Nothosubspecies | Plantae | 6 |
| Species | Plantae | 3545162 |
| Species aggregate | Plantae | 2489 |
| Species group | Plantae | 22731 |
| Species hybrid | Plantae | 15259 |
| Subspecies | Plantae | 155616 |
| Variety | Plantae | 12024 |
Is there a more rigid name convention or vocabulary that we could adopt?
Yes, we should use this vocabulary: http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/gbif/rank_2015-04-24.xml It uses lowercase names + no spaces. Here's a mapping of what it should be:
- Cultivar →
cultivar - Form →
form - Generic hybrid → not part of vocab, would like to see examples
- Genus →
genus - Nothosubspecies → would like to see examples
- Species →
species - Species aggregate → would have to see examples
- Species group → would have to see examples
- Species hybrid → would have to see examples
- Subspecies →
subspecies - Variety →
variety
@stijnvanhoey can you provide some examples for the ones above?