inferring relationships of higher order nodes based on geographic range
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.