GBIF eligible records not getting there

General
#1

Entered under general as it may be intentional, although I am unsure why it would be. Are there any cases folks can think of that would prevent eligible records from not getting to GBIF?

No Ontario records of Rapids Clubtail are being sent to GBIF.

This is one of 2 species of dragonfly on the endangered species list for Ontario and auto obscured.

It is seemingly not the auto obscuring as provincial records of Hines Emerald the other so listed and auto obscured ode in Ontario do get sent to GBIF.

It is not location, the few spots for it are in the centre of the province so not having an obscuring box that goes outside the province.

It is not user license plenty of dedicated Ontario observers have records of both but only the Hines Emerald get to GBIF.

My fear is it may be related to all the turning on and off of obscuring that went on in Canada related to NatureServe taking over sole responsibility for obscuring, but I’d have to find other taxa to see of they are equally impacted.

Any other reason they may not go?

#2

Can you link to observations you expect to see on GBIF but don’t? The first one I checked is there.

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/5410508
https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1453529630

Several observers of this species in Ontario have their observation license set as All Rights Reserved, which would prevent them from exporting for GBIF.

1 Like
#3

I see records of rapids clubtail in GBIF:
https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/search?q=Phanogomphus%20quadricolor&publishing_org=28eb1a3f-1c15-4a95-931a-4af90ecb574d&taxon_key=4799547&gadm_gid=CAN.9_1

I don’t have the ability to select exactly “Phanogomphus quadricolor” from the taxonomy list, it looks like GBIF has “Phanogomphus” as doubtful https://www.gbif.org/species/4799547 but I’m not sure why, but it looks like Gomphus quadricolor is the ITIS accepted form on GBIF but since Phanogomphus quadricolor doesn’t exist in the taxonomy it’s not linking the iNaturalist specimens to the GBIF accepted name. So it might be a GBIF thing not an iNat thing, unless there was a reason to switch from Phanogomphus to Gomphus (but I know NOTHING about this taxa)

#4

It’s the taxonomy change. Gbif has the species under both Gomphus and Phanogomphus. Virtually all authorities have moved all North American taxa to Phanogonphus. But when I did the search it pulled up Gomphus which still shows records.

1 Like