trias-project / alien-fishes-checklist Goto Github PK

The following taxa are considered synonyms by GBIF. For each: ask Hugo if it's OK to a) update in the xls our scientific name to the accepted species or b) keep our current species name

• Aspius aspius (https://www.gbif.org/species/2360181) is considered a synonym of Leuciscus aspius (https://www.gbif.org/species/5851603)
• Acipenser guldenstaedti... actually written as Acipenser güldenstaedti (https://www.gbif.org/species/2402131) is considered a synonym of Acipenser gueldenstaedtii (https://www.gbif.org/species/2402129)

The following fish species are non-native in Flanders but considered native in waarnemingen.be

• Abramis sapa (no current observations in waarnemingen.be, but I believe one has been caught a few years ago in the 'Watersportbaan' in Ghent)
• Vimba vimba (no current observations in waarnemingen.be, but they have been caught in canal 'Kortrijk-Bossuit')
• Romanogobio belingi (no current observations in waarnemingen.be and species ID is hard, so might stay unnoticed for some time, but it has been found in The Netherlands)

In the description.csv extension, I mapped the original pathways (e.g. active migration to the CBD standard (e.g. cbd_2014_pathway:corridor_water. However, for the original pathway unintentional, I couldn't find a good CBD alternative. This could be due to an escape, a contaminant, stowaway,...
Any good suggestions, or do I contact Hugo Verreycken for the interpretation?

The species Proterorhinus semilunairs (https://www.gbif.org/species/141117239) could not be matched to GBIF because it contains a typo. Name should be: Proterorhinus semilunaris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proterorhinus_semilunaris).

@LienReyserhove:

1. Can you update source xls
2. Inform Hugo
3. Rerun processing
4. Republishing should be done after #14 and final metadata

Note: this should create a new taxonID and therefor new record at GBIF. In other words:

• https://www.gbif.org/species/141117239 will disappear
• https://www.gbif.org/species/2379245 should include our dataset

Do we have "vagrant", "introduced" info for fishes? @qgroom @timadriaens

Do we know the following information for the fishes in this dataset?

• isMarine
• isFreshwater
• isTerrestrial: yes, false for all.

If so, I would add habitat information to the source file, include it in the description extension and populate the speciesProfile.

I remember from the last meeting that all fishes were all "established", but right now "invasion stage" information is based on "raw_status", with:

Is this correct @timadriaens?

@LienReyserhove can you change the repository so that it uses the template Google Spreadsheet rather than the current Excel Spreadsheet?

The header of the dwc_checklist.Rmd is rather odd. Needs to be checked later (by myself or @peterdesmet)

Should we add a source to vernacularname, distribution and description? It is probably all the checklist itself, so not really relevant?

I asked Hugo the following information, so I can update the mapping:

• full taxonomic names
• add taxonomy
• add date last observation
• check updated mapping of introduction pathway, is this ok?
• add source