Dmitry Dmitriev
Dmitry Dmitriev
@dimus I believe it should be treated as superspecies, but the problem is that authors not always follow the ICZN rules for coordinated names, and many taxonomists believe that 'species...
Yes, I partially fooled myself. Because I started with distribution, and could not find it in Browse TN. The records are comming from the synonyms, but those has incorrect labels...
No, not to make it speciefic, but to add an OTU name column
and there is another error, when I click Expand hyperlink, it is restricted to a single OTU...
Third poind, add an radial annotator to the distribution record in the table
"In general we could imagine thousands of annotors on this page- I think we have to be careful about just spamming them." I agree
@mjy, it is still an issue. it looks like the issue is with the endpoint. See an example in the 3i database https://sfg.taxonworks.org/tasks/otus/browse/36540 The timeline has 3 OTU citation. All...
my guess they may want to create a new key word for the data attribute and add this to the extract form. But I could be wrong...
it will not classify as "[Pyrophanes] quadrimaculata bimaculata" because you specifically moved it out of this species. The original combination will definitely stay. My best suggestion is to elevate it...
we had similar request from Lucid. Get NeXML file and a zip file with all images. But it could, potentially, be resolved by direct links from NeXML.