RAB records of nominal variety occurrences have incomplete name
Note all the yellow RAB dots for Ilex longipes, when longipes is unambiguously mapped by RAB as decisua var. longipes. It appears that all decidua dots are being treated as unambiguous.
I think this is a previously undocumented bug. The crux of the problem is
that the RAB map label foir the nominal var is Ilex decidua and not Ilex decidua var decidua.
This is probably a widespread problem in the database and we need to
systematically search the Radford records for vars and make sure that the
records for the nominal varieties are so reported in the database. I
think this will be the case for every taxon where there is both the
nominal var and a named var. Xianhua should be able to do this rather simply.
#1 Updated by Xianhua Liu over 12 years ago
I do not understand about this one. For me there is nothing wrong about the map of Ilex longipes. We have Ilex longipes (Alan Weakley) = Ilex decidua var. longipes (RAB). So we can infer that Ilex longipes (Alan Weakley) < Ilex decidua (RAB). So Ilex decidua (RAB) is ambiguous identification for Ilex longipes (Alan Weakley).
#2 Updated by Robert Peet over 12 years ago
If you look at the RAB book you find a map for Ilex decidua and a map for Ilex decidua var. longipes. What RAB mean by Ilex decidua was Ilex decidua var. decidua, but that is not the way the records are in our database; we just followed the names on the maps. Every time RAB had a map with a full species and one or more maps of the same species but for a var, the full species name needs to be changed to the nominal var. (ie the species with the var name = to the species name).
#4 Updated by xianhua liu over 12 years ago
Let consider Ilex longipes example.
First of all we have following relationships:
1. Ilex longipes (Weakley 2005) = Ilex decidua var. longipes (Radford et al. 1968)
2. Ilex longipes (Weakley 2005) < Ilex decidua (Radford et al. 1968)
Secondly, RAB records follow Radford standard.
Based on relationship 2, we are not sure if Ilex decidua in RAB is Ilex longipes sec. Weakley 2005. So it is umbiguous unless we can establish a relationship Ilex longipes (Weakley 2005) = Ilex decidua (Radford et al. 1968). I wonder if it is the case that an "equal" relationship can be produced based on the relationship 1.
#5 Updated by Robert Peet over 12 years ago
You completely misunderstand this bug. Let's start over. Perhaps you are confusing logical mapping with physical mapping.
The problem has nothing to do with the logic of the programing or the concept mapping. Instead there are errors in the distribution data reported in 1968 in the Radford flora (as presented in the printed maps).
In the case of Ilex decidua, Radford recognized two varieties, longipes and decidua. He also provided two maps, one for decidua var longipes (correct), and one for Ilex decidua, which should have been labeled Ilex decidua var decidua. It turns out that this is a common error in the flora. Nearly every case where there are is a nominal variety (Aus beus var beus) and one or more other varieties (Aus beus var ceus), the printed map of the distribution of the nominal variety is incorrectly labeled as the full species (Aus beus). We need to systematically search out these cases and relabel the records in our database with the correct names. We also need to keep a list of the taxa where this error occurs so that we can notify USDA and Kartesz.
#7 Updated by xianhua liu over 12 years ago
Thanks. I am clear now about the issue. Here enclosed please find the excel file that contains all the Vars in RAB concepts.
So, the Ilex decidua (Radford et al. 1968) records should all be changed to Ilex decidua var. decidua(Radford et al. 1968). Right? If it is correct, then
Ilex decidua var. decidua(Radford et al. 1968) will not show up at all since there is no relationship between Ilex longipes (Weakley 2005) and Ilex decidua var. decidua(Radford et al. 1968).