InfoVeg

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.

Given:

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).

Xianhua

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.

Bob

• Bug 2942 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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.

Original Bugzilla ID was 2842