Ambiguous records should have details of ambiguity clickable
Discussion from Peter White with RKP responses:
Makes we wonder if we need to parse the kinds of ambiguity. Is there more
than one kind of ambiguity? The simplest case would be:
Mostly I think in terms of only one kind of ambiguity. Forced to think
more broadly, I think we can contrast nominal identifications where
multiple taxa might be included, versus more constrained ambiguity where
the record derives from the work of only one author
Definitive lumping. This is the case where a map of Carya glabra includes by
definition locations that might be Carya ovalis. It is not ambiguous in the
sense that the author (say RAB) came to conclusion they werent' different
species. Our standard disagrees, but RAB simply didn't believe C. ovalis was
real. In that case the record would be Carya glabra (includes C. ovalis).
Or Carya glabra (click here for included taxa).
If the line read:
Carya glabra (click for included taxa)
The color on the map would still stay ambiguous record
The definition of ambiguous would indicate what kinds of ambiguity exist.
you could have multiple entries from the concept map--as in the Andropogon
case--without listing them next to the map.
I think I will add a low priority bug to allow clicking to see details of
ambiguity. The details will need to be fleshed out later.