...
This approach works with the most complete names first, with the theory that a name with less detail will match multiple names with more detail. If a name is integrated with less detail then
The fields that are used for defining a distinct name are:
- Canonical
- Rank
- Authors
- Year
- Genus
- Species
- GoverningCode
Genus and Species are not fields of a name, but are calculated fields based on parent concepts.The theory with including these fields is to ensure and sub generic name or sub specific name matches other sub generic/specific names that do not have exactly the same parent hierarchy.
For example:
Name 1: Aus bus var. cus
- Aus, genus
- bus , species
- cus, variety
- bus , species
Name 2: Aus bus xus var. cus
- Aus, genus
- bus, species
- xus, subspecies
- cus, variety
- xus, subspecies
- bus, species
The fields for these 2 names will be:
Name | Canonical | Rank | Authors | Year | Genus | Species | Governing Code |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | cus | var. | Aus | bus | ICBN | ||
2 | cus | var. | Aus | bus | ICBN |
So according to these fields, the names will match even though the direct parents of the 2 'cus' names are different, which is correct.
Another example:
Name 1: Lecanorales Nannf., order
- Ascomycetes, class
- Lecanorales Nannf., order
Name 2: Lecanorales, order
- Ascomycetes, class
- Lecanoromycetidae, subclass
- Lecanorales, order
- Lecanoromycetidae, subclass
Name | Canonical | Rank | Authors | Year | Genus | Species | Governing Code |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Lecanorales | order | Nannf. | ICBN | |||
2 | Lecanorales | order | ICBN |
Again, will match even though the parent names are definied to be different. Again this is correct.
Generating Consensus Records
...