There is some kind of more generic problem going on than these specific examples. Your designated place has (as i write this) 11 species listed on its observed species list. Sardinia alone has over 2,000 reported species, all of which should have been added automatically to the observed species list for this place. And those in turn should have made it to your checklist.
I’m guessing there is some kind of issue or queue on the indexer again, but site staff would need to validate that.
That https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/21266202 was listing https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/aliem as a containing project was a bug. We were not properly considering the “introduced” collection project parameter, and that taxon is not “introduced” where that observation was recorded. That has been fixed and deployed so that observation is now, properly, not listing the project. To be clear - you said it was “(correctly)” appearing, but it was not correct, and it’s not in that project, as that taxon is not introduced in that location and the alienm project requires taxa to be introduced.
Thank you for your contribution but Gazania spp. should be both present and introduced in the area of the project.
When I wrote the last message there still was not a checklits for that area (and I thank you those who made it) as well as the only Carpobrotus present in the area was C. chilensis.
Anyway, I excuse in the case I have missed something
I think that when you create a place checklist it does not automatically get retroactively populated, so the 25 taxa you saw were likely from observations created or edited since the check list was created. I’m not complete sure on the desired behavior here, but this is what I noticed. I triggered a repopulation of this checklist from observations and that seems to have filled it up.
@blue_celery, there may be Gazania species that are introduced in that place, but https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/21266202 is identified to the genus and the genus is not marked as introduced in that place. So I don’t think there’s a bug here, but please elaborate if think there are remaining issues.
ok, I see.
in my opinion it could be something that could be changed. If there are species in a given area, of course there must be the respective genera and the relative observations that are still in the need of ID. This is true for genera that are completely introduced in a certain area.
Instead, there are cases in which a certain genus has both native and introduced species in a certain area.
I’m not completely familiar with how check lists work or are supposed to work, or the place pages, but I can help with projects. The place pages are based on place checklists I believe and not observation searches. My personal recommendation is if you want to look for taxa and observations in a place, is to use observations search/Explore. If you search for Acacia dealbata in “Interreg IT-FR Marittimo”, you’ll see that its there: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=140150&subview=grid&taxon_id=53343. And if you search for Acacia dealbata in this project, you’ll also see that it’s there: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?subview=grid&taxon_id=53343&project_id=aliem
To be clear - projects have nothing to do with place checklists. So whether or not a taxon is in a place checklist will have no impact on whether or not observations of that taxon will appear in a project due to a place filter. Projects (collections) are based entirely off of real-time observation searches.
So it sounds like there might be bugs in place checklists, but I don’t see anything wrong with your project. Since this post is about projects, are there any remaining issues with your project? If you’re still seeing issues with place checklists, it might be worthwhile opening a separate thread about that.
Sorry but I wrote because there was any Acacia in the area checklist while now I see that there are four Acacia sensu lato species (three Acacia + Vachellia karroo).
It is something like the checklist of that area is increasing but slowly.
Anyway, I supposed that taxa are automatically added to a project also on the basis of its checklists. Especially if a project allows only introduced taxa I thought that the automatic addition is based on the status of introduced species reported in the checklist.
Maybe, as you suggested, I will open a new thread on how the checklist of a given area is formed.