Collection image

Taxon Problems Awaiting Resolution From Content Partners

Last updated almost 2 years ago

This collection tracks taxon concept management tasks that are due to false information supplied by content partners and need to be fixed on their end. Also see these related collections: Clean-Up To Do List, Clean-Up Tasks With Pending Issues, Clean-Up Tasks Completed.

  • 47901_88_88

    Ranunculus acris

    Tall Buttercup

    Insect Visitors of Illinois Wildflowers has this under Animalia. Need to jirafy this for Eli.

  • 79914_88_88

    Wheel Bugs--mate guarding

    Image of Arilus cristatus

    It appears in Arachnida - why? -- Mixed tags on this Flickr image pull many bug images into Arachnida: -- Kicked it out of the group pool. The problem should disappear with the next Flickr harvest.

  • Rhynchota

    Bugs in Arachnida due to tag chaos in this image: Kicked it out of the group pool.

  • 95249_88_88

    Images from Singing Insects of North America. 622pm, Cyrtoxip...

    Image of Cyrtoxipha columbiana

    Why is this Cyrtoxipha cricket image appearing (twice!) in Anaxipha media gallery? -- Anaxipha columbiana is a synonym of Cyrtoxipha columbiana, so we have some classifications that put this species in the genus Anaxipha: Nothing we can do about that at the moment.

  • 00368_88_88


    Spoon Worms

    Figure out why there are earthworms in the Echiurans. It's a problem in the AskNature hierarchy. Will soon be fixed. -- Apparently not. Sep 2014.

  • Chimaeropsyllidae

    NMNH Entomology puts these fleas in the millipedes. Not much we can do unless they fix this.

  • 93908_88_88



    Diptera images are getting pulled into Psocoptera media collection because of Diptera order tag on this image: Removed from pool. Should fix itself in a couple of days. -- Still some mosquito images in the collection. Trying a reindex.

  • 69666_88_88

    Image of Acacia sp.

    Image of Acacia sp.

    This (and other) "Acacia sp." images are displaying on the Tetragnathidae (spider family) page! -- This was due to mixed hierarchy tags in a Flickr image: Removed it from the pool, without a more specific id it's not all that valuable anyway. -- Still not fixed months later. Requesting reindex. -- Ugh! Library of Alexandria also has translated that image complete with erroneous tags.

  • 61645_88_88

    Image of Notocelis gullmarensis

    Image of Notocelis gullmarensis

    There are many Acoela species images (e.g. the whole pp. 83 and 84) shown in the Platyhelminthes media gallery (actually they belong to a different phylum: Acoelomorpha). -- The problem here is that BOLD puts Acoela in Platyhelminthes. As long as they give us this classification, our Platyhelminthes classification will be polluted with Acoela.

  • 14369_88_88

    Liolaemidae or

    "Liolaemidae or Tropiduridae"??? This is because Reptile database had two alternative family names in the same family name field. Likely needs some merging and cleanup. -- Selected another classification as the preferred name.

  • 47397_88_88

    Trichogrammatidae n. gen. 2

    This concept has a problematic Trichogrammatidae HE in it from Wikipedia that has all Hymenoptera as a child. Fixed this at the source. Hoping EOL will automatically update. At that point, the remaining HEs in this concept should be merged with the Trichogrammatidae concept. -- Flawed Wikipedia hierarchy is still there weeks later.

  • 49499_88_88



    Several images of Colocasia (Plant) in this Colocasia (Lepidoptera) media collection. -- There is a mixed plant/moth hierarchy from Flickr. Added order & family tags to moth images to disentangle. Check back in a couple of days. -- Flickr hierarchies are now separated, moved some more plant hierarchies to the plant genus. Still have some Schismatoglottis images in the moth collection. Requested a reindex on 14 July 2014. -- Still not fixed. Reindexing again.

  • 13327_88_88

    Dromas ardeola

    Crab Plover

    Crab Plovers are showing up in the Glareolidae media collection because of a family tag on this image: Requested that it be removed. -- No response. Removed from group. Problem should fix itself. -- ugh, now Inventaire National du Patrimoine Naturel has it under Glareolidae. So these will remain in the Glareolidae collection for now.

  • 58333_88_88


    Amblycerus is a bruchid (now in Chrysomelidae), not a curculionid or anthribid. Moved all the chrysomelid/bruchid HEs to a common concept and leaving the misplaced weevil HEs here.

  • Cecidomyia poculum

    This cecidomyiid (Diptera) is misclassified by NMNH Entomology resource as a cynipid (Hymenoptera).

  • 52942_88_88

    Macaco-da-noite (Aotus nigriceps)

    Image of Aotus nigriceps

    This owl monkey (Aotidae) image incorrectly showed up on the Cebidae page. -- Catalogue of Life and ITIS have Aotus under Cebidae. This is an outdated view, but here's nothing we can do about this until they change their classification.

  • 38867_88_88

    Fruity Delight - Ant mimic spider with prey

    Image of Myrmarachne

    Why is this salticid image appearing on the Lycosidae page? Quick look suggests it is correctly tagged as Salticidae on Flickr but maybe I missed something... -- The NMNH Resource puts Myrmarachne in Lycosidae:

  • 48348_88_88

    Image of Gelis sp.

    Image of Gelis sp.

    This (and other) Gelis ichneumonid images are showing up on the Zodariidae spider family page. I haven't really investigated why this might be happening... -- The problem here is incorrect taxonomy information in the ZooKeys resource. I have requested that they correct it.

  • 10281_88_88

    Image of Argiope

    Image of Argiope


    Why is an Argiope image showing up on the Lycosidae page? -- NMNH Entomology Resource is to blame:

  • 08914_88_88

    Image of Theridion

    Image of Theridion

    Why is this (and other) Theridion image(s) displaying on Theridiosomatidae page? -- NMNH Entomology resource has Theridion in Theridiosomatidae:

  • 87017_88_88

    Image of Philodromus fuscomarginatus

    Image of Philodromus fuscomarginatus

    Why is this (and other) Philodromus image(s) displaying on Thomisidae page? -- BioPix has Philodromus fuscomarginatus in Thomisidae:

  • 96567_88_88

    Colchicum bulbocodium

    Spring Meadow Saffron

  • Anilocra physoides

    THis is a page created by a spelling error by the photographer in Flickr. This should be merged with A. physodes: -- notified photographer should resolve itself soon.

  • 47480_88_88



    Several images of Dromas ardeola in this Glareoliidae media collection. -- This is because of a family tag on this image: Requested that it be removed. There are data placing the crab plover as the sister group of Glareoliidae, so it's conceivable that there is a paper somewhere proposing that it be included in this family. But I haven't actually seen this.

  • 61173_88_88



    Images of Balaeniceps rex on Pelecanidae page, perhaps because of AnAge. -- AnAge, AskNature, and Harvard Museum of Natural History Africa Hall put the shoebill into Pelecanidae. Since it's probably the sister group to the pelicans, that's not too far-fetched. Most sources put it in its own family though.

  • 06071_88_88

    Nycticebus coucang

    Image of Nycticebus coucang

    This image shows up in the Chiromyiformes media collection, because NCBI puts lorises in Chiromyiformes. Generally, this group only contains the aye aye. Abi left a comment. Waiting for this to be addressed at NCBI.

  • 72159_88_88


    Sand Dollar

    For some reason all the Psammechinus miliaris images got placed into order Clypeasteroida (sand dollars) but should be in order Camarodonta (sea urchins). -- This error was introduced by the Wikimedia Commons hierarchy. Fixed it at the source. Should resolve itself with the next harvest.

  • 60200_88_88

    Spiraea discolor

    Spiraea discolor W.H.Brewer & S.Watson is not a valid name as far as I can see--is this more old bad data from COL, suggesting we do need a fresh harvest? I'm not sure what it's a synonym of (though Spiraea discolor Pursh is a synonym of Holodiscus discolor (Pursh) Maxim.--or maybe of Holodiscus discolor var. discolor (Pursh) Maxim.? Regardless, unless there is a valid source for this name, it appears to me this page should be deleted. -- We know that the Rosaceae data we currently have from CoL are problematic and we need to do a data reload. It's on the list of things to do. In the meantime, there's no point in collecting issues due to non-accepted Rosaceae names from CoL. I'm not going to spend my time manually fixing these when they are likely to resolve themselves with our next harvest.

  • 48585_88_88

    Odontites vernus

    Red Bartsia

    A bit confusing taxonomy, but perhaps the images of Odontites vulgaris and Odontites vernus subsp. serotina should be moved to Serotina vulgaris page and Odontites vernus subsp. serotina page should be merged to Serotina vulgaris page. Odontites vulgaris and Odontites vernus subsp. serotina are mapped to the same concept as synonyms, but we also have content partners that consider Odontites vernus subsp. serotina a subgroup of Odontites vernus. Because of these hierarchies, the Odontites vulgaris and Odontites vernus subsp. serotina images are pulled into the Odontites vulgaris media collection, and there's nothing we can do about this at the moment.

  • 71312_88_88


    Well here's a mess--and it could be an enormous one of this is not an isolated glitch! In the real world, between zero and two species of Mespilus are recognized. But COL, according to EOL, recognizes HUNDREDS of Mespilus species. In fact, if one goes to COL, it turns out these are listed as SYNONYMS, not valid names: So, how many names recognized as SYNONYMS by our classification providers is EOL presenting as valid names? Katja can check my quick assessment of this problem, but assuming I'm not missing some key point, this seems like a high priority issue to investigate. ––Katja: It looks like CoL had all these Mespilus species as provisionally accepted names in the 2013 checklist, which is what we have at the moment. But they have cleaned up this genus in the most recent version of their dynamic checklist. Unfortunately, we probably won't get these new data until some time next year when we update to the 2014 checklist. Unless the problem is more widespread, I'd say we'll leave it alone for now. If you notice more such discrepancies in CoL data, we may want to request an emergency update for this resource. But I know it's a lot work to harvest CoL, so I would want to do it only if we really need to.

  • 05170_88_88


    Image of Turdus migratorius

    Found in Muscicapidae collection 27 Oct 12. This looks like it is because PaleoDB lists a subfamily Turdinae under Muscicapidae. Cyndy is merging that subfamily with Turdidae in hopes of fixing this. 7jun13. -- Katja: American robins will show up under Muscicapidae as long as we have a partner putting them in this family in their hierarchy. It appears that Muscicapidae and Turdidae are often lumped together into one family.

    Sort value: on hold

  • 95249_88_88

    Images from Singing Insects of North America. 622pm, Cyrtoxip...

    Image of Cyrtoxipha columbiana

    Why is this image of a Cyrtoxipha cricket showing up not only on the Cyrtoxipha genus page, as it should, but also on the Anaxipha genus page, as it should not.

  • 48566_88_88

    Devario malabaricus

    Malabar Danio

    Merged in Perilampus aurolineatus from Morphbank. Remaining problem: Perilampus McClelland, 1838 (Actinopterygii: Cyprinidae) is a junior homonym of Perilampus Latreille 1809 (Hymenoptera: Perilampidae). Morphbank puts this fish species under Hymenoptera. Tried to check the source, but the Morphbank site appears to be down. Please fix the placement of this taxon in the Morphbank hierarchy.

  • 84133_88_88

    Berthelinia chloris

    Looks like a synonym provided by NMNH IZ put this lovely green snail in the bivalves.

  • 87497_88_88


    Pensoft problem with rank names instead of actual nomenclature in the appropriate field. Have emailed Pensoft to see if they can fix the problems.

  • 87497_88_88


    Pensoft problem with rank names instead of actual nomenclature in the appropriate field. Have emailed Pensoft to see if they can fix the problems.