InfoVeg

If one looks at the relationship of Acer negundo (a higher order node with relationships inferred from lower order relationships) one finds
1. Acer negundo (W) < Acer negundo (G&C 1991)
2. Acer negundo (W) > Acer negundo var. texanum (G&C 1991)
and no other G&C relationships

Relationship 1 is in error because because Weakley recognized that G&C includes vars from outside the range of Weakley, but the relationship should be equal because we now define relationships based on common range coverage; ie we have contingent relationships. This needs to be descroibed for a possible TDWG revision. Also, we need to screen the other relationships for this problem.

Also we are missing a relationship:
Acer negundo (W) > Acer negundo var negundo (G&C 1991)

Perhaps this is missing because it needs to be inferred from:
Acer negundo var negundo (W) < Acer negundo var negundo (G&C 1991)
Acer negundo var violaceaum (W) < Acer negundo var negundo (G&C 1991)

I am not sure what would happen if we corrected 1 above to be =.
Would this allow the missing relationship to be inferred? If not,
this suggests a need to rework the inference rules.
to accommodate the situation of unequal ranges of authorities.