Morpho

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the use of the EML
taxonomicCoverage fields here that is leading to this problem in how Morpho is
importing the taxon information. In EML (and the BDP, as they are the same), a
Genus or higher level value in the taxonRankValue field should be a monomial,
while a Species-level rank should ALWAYS be at least a binomial. For example...

For Genus Ursus, you should have:
<taxonRankName>Genus</taxonRankName>
<taxonRankValue>Ursus</taxonRankValue>

For Species Ursus arctos you have:
<taxonRankName>Species</taxonRankName>
<taxonRankValue>Ursus arctos</taxonRankValue>

Note how it is a binomial!

So the following construct is NOT VALID in EML because the species value is not
a binomial:
<taxonomicClassification>
<taxonRankName>Genus</taxonRankName>
<taxonRankValue>Ursus</taxonRankValue>
</taxonomicClassification>
<taxonomicClassification>
<taxonRankName>Species</taxonRankName>
<taxonRankValue>arctos</taxonRankValue>
</taxonomicClassification>

In Morpho, when we are importing taxonomic data from a table, a 'Genus' column
can be imported into taxonRankValue fields as a monomial, but it is not right to
import the monomial 'arctos' value from a column into a Species rank. Instead,
we need to concatenate the Genus and species info from the two columns and put
the concatenated value into the taxonRankValue field.

This example in the BDP shows this doen correctly, but the EML spec gives a
misleading example and should probably be corrected and be more specific about
how to handle species binomials and trinomials, etc.

I am updating the EML documentation (embedded in the eml-coverage.xsd source) to use species binomial in the red maple example:

'Acer' would be an example of a genus rank value, and 'Acer rubrum' would be an example of a species rank value with the common name of red maple.

Original Bugzilla ID was 2210