Flag for Taxon: False Assegai (Maesa lanceolata)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tonyrebelo | False Assegai (Maesa lanceolata) |
why is this near threatened IUCN? it is not! |
Mar. 26, 2020 07:31:13 +0000 | tonyrebelo |
conservation status removed (is LC) |
Comments
@loarie What should curators do under these circumstances?
I think it is safe to fix it. What likely happened since the link leads to a page not found error is that at one time it was assessed as NT but it was reassessed (the real page if you search the IUCN site shows a 2018 assessment date) and that update not processed.
Thanks. Will do.
OK: so I just "removed" conservation status, rather than retype in everything -
Is that OK?
Or should I add a revised conservation status with the above link/
I dont think it causes any issues for an LC listing to be missing, conversely I kind of like seeing them too as to fill out understanding of a species. Basically do whichever you see fit.
Will it be automatically reconnected with the next "handshaking" - how does that work?
How was it "orphaned" in the first place?
I dont think the site by default loads lc listings. That is what it is now, so unless it gets reassessed again, I dont think it will update.
I suspect it got orphaned by the IUCN changing the code that references the species, since the one that was there resulted in a page not found. Which may be why it did not update
back in the day (maybe around 2012) we imported every species from the IUCN redlist into iNat along with their conservation status at the time. Obviously this resulted in alot of duplicate taxa etc. which over the years have been curated in various directions away from IUCN and the conservation statuses have become out of sync and variously updated manually by curators.
We're currently not doing any 'syncing' with IUCN aside from a experimental mammal sync where we were very careful to map concepts (e.g. if the mammal on iNat was split from the mammal on IUCN then we didn't pull in the assessment). I'd love to do this more regularly and for other clades on IUCN (birds etc.) but they require maintaining these concept-mappings (really taxon framework relationships sourced to IUCN) which is a ton of work.
IUCN is mostly vertebrates (where I do feel like that concept-mapping would be possible) and recently some plants which are coming from Kew. Since Kew also manages POWO maybe we can assume that our existing concept-mapping to POWO would apply and we could use that to update IUCN statuses, but I suspect that despite both being managed by Kew, plants in the IUCN redlist are likely quite different from whats on POWO and I doubt they're maintaining anything like a concept mapping
Sorry for rambling. But in short, we're not doing any automatic handshaking with IUCN for plants so we're relying on manual curation of these conservation statuses. We could do an automated handshake if we had concept-mappings (e.g. one-to-one vs one-to-many)
Thanks: to cut to the chase ...
Is it OK to just remove the conservation status our would you prefer me to relink it with the current Conservation status?
I'd prefer the latter - but the former is OK
added and relinked: done ...
Full on lockdown in ZA starts in 70 minutes: confined to homes except for food shopping for 3 weeks ...
We're not quite there yet, but the list of things we can do or go to is dwindling by the hour.
ha - great time for IDing and taxonomy curation , not so much for observing... stay healthy everyone!
Yeah, right now with everyone at home, it is taxing our cable and internet infrastructure, so staying connected is a little tough.
Scott -do you know what is going on here ? https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/clean-up-of-items-in-source-box-on-create-taxa-page/10986/7
Makes it hard to do a key step of taxa curation/creation properly.
the IUCN says Least Concerned:
https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/146188146/146214663