Better labels for ambiguous occurrences
This is an upgrade; not an error.
Ambiguous identifications have a legend entry that states the name that was found ambiguous. For example, Carya glabra in NCU is ambiguous and has a legend notation of "Ambiguous identification: Carya glabra". It would be far more informative if the legend were to read "Ambiguous identification: Carya glabra OR Carya ovalis". (I realize that when all sources are on one sees "Ambiguous identification: Carya glabra, Carya ovalis", but this still refers to the labels on the specimens and not the concepts according to Weakley. In effect, I am suggesting we label ambiguous ids by Weakley concept lists, whereas we keep the other ids linked to the names in the databases from which they derive.
#1 Updated by Robert Peet about 14 years ago
Peter White writes:
I wonder if it should be Carya glabra AND/OR Carya ovalis. If the
record is based on lumping, but splitting is the standard, couldn't both
taxa be present in a county? That is, a county dot map represents more
than one specimen. Obviously one specimen has almost never two species,
except when a collector has mounted two twigs on one sheet thinking they
are the same, but they are not (I have seen this myself).
Good idea. I think this expresses the situation more clearly.
However, I have some concerns.
1. AND/OR takes up more valuable real estate.
2. Maps are from the perspective of a single taxon, so we don't really care if both are present in the county -- that can be deduced from looking at the other map.
Let's see if Xianhua thinks there is space enough. Could get complex with something like Andropogon virginicus where several taxa have to be concatinated for the ambiguous Radford counties.