Incorrect mapping of nominal concepts
The relationships for Quercus falcata show:
Quercus falcata (Weakley 2005) = Quercus rubra (nominal)
This derives from the relationship
Quercus falcata (Weakley 2005) = Quercus rubra (Small 1933,1938).
This in turn results in specimens of Q rubra (nominal) being mapped unambiguously as Q. falcata (Weakley 2005). However, Q falcata (Weakley 2005) does not overlap Q rubra (Weakley 2005) so the Q rubra specimens shoudlat best be ambiguous.
This calls for a revision of the rules for determining nominal relationships. Specifically, before an = relationship is accepted we need to search for other relationships to Weakley concepts based on the name in question.
#1 Updated by xianhua liu over 11 years ago
The issue is that the Weakley concepts are not considered when we infer the relationships to nominal concepts. Go back to the Quercus falcata example I have following concerns:
1. It seems that there should be more relationships between Quercus falcata (Weakley 2005) and Quercus rubra (other references). If Quercus falcata (Weakley 2005) = Quercus rubra (Small 1933,1938) is the only relationship, it is not necessary to have the concept Quercus rubra (Weakley 2005). So we must have some other relationships like: Quercus falcata (Weakley 2005) > (or <) Quercus rubra (FNA ?). So, the issue could be in the incomplete list of relationships.
2. How to change the rule if it is needed.
a. Quercus falcata (Weakley 2005) = Quercus rubra (Small 1933,1938)
b. Q falcata (Weakley 2005)does not overlap Q rubra (Weakley 2005)
A reasonable inferring result can be Quercus falcata (Weakley 2005) < Quercus rubra (nominal).
#2 Updated by Robert Peet over 11 years ago
Your proposed rule seems appropriate. At a minimum we check to see whether there is an equal-rank but different (and thus disjunct) Weakley concept that has a name that matches one or more names of concepts that have at least an overlapping relationship to the weakley concept in question.
#4 Updated by Robert Peet over 11 years ago
We need to implement this change soon.
There is a related issue, Very few if any museum collections follow Small for the concept and name of Q. rubra falcata W = Q rubra Small. It would be helpful if we added an administrative option to delete consideration of a specific relationship in determination of the nominal relationships (and a note on the relationship page might be in order too, such as a * symbol after the W-S relationship. If we had this, I could as administrator simply mark the relationship as not considered and have a better map.