Bug #2590
closed"get missing taxa" search
0%
Description
We think that selecting more than one data source in the “get missing taxa†search should work as an “and†function, not an “or†function, as it does currently. For example, a missing taxa search with NCU and RAB checked for Orange Co., NC, currently identifies taxa that are missing from either NCU or RAB, and combines them. The search result may be more useful were it to find taxa that are missing from both NCU and RAB.
RKP:
I have not checked to see that your assertion is correct, so I will assume it is. Yes, this is a change that we should make.
Updated by Michael Lee over 17 years ago
contributed by Lisa Giencke & Stephen Seiberling
Comments by Bob Peet followed by RKP:
Updated by Xianhua Liu over 17 years ago
Let's put an example here to make it clearer. Given one target county: C and 2 data sources: A and B.
For C's neighbors we have:
N1. Names found in source A: w,x,y
N2. Names found in source B: u,y,z
N3. Names found in both A and B: y
N4. Names found in A or B: u,w,x,y,z
For C we have:
C1. Names found in A: x,z
C2. Names found in B: u
C3. Names found in A and B: (none)
C4. Names found in A or B: u,x,z
Currently, the missing taxa query returns N4-C4: w,y. Then what should we return, N3-C3, N3-C4 or (N1-C1)+(N2-C2)?
Updated by Xianhua Liu over 17 years ago
(N1-C1): w,y
(N2-C2): y,z
(N1-C1)+(N2-C2): w,y,z
N4-C4: w,y
(N1-C1)+(N2-C2)!=N4-C4