Updating existing data david usda glucose

Basically covers species comprehensively (garbage included). Does not cover species comprehensively outside of North America. WCSP: Curated independently from any other database.

Excellent for species it covers, but doesn't cover all families. IPNI: Basically curated independently (there's no reason to consult it's source databases directly, and no other database I'm mentioning draws from them). Gives absolutely no opinions on synonym/accepted status. World Flora Online: Many institutions (including Kew) are working on this as the successor to The Plant List.

TPL claims that the Pankhurst database will be rolled into WCSP, but when searching WCSP directly it still has no records for Prunus.

Pankhurst's database may have been incorporated into POWO (POWO does attribute Prunus records to WCSP).

Lavateraguy (talk) , 23 July 2018 (UTC)Toxicodendron orientale seems to have been excluded from the species.

It looks as if POWO's distributions may be unreliable.

(I found some issues with Crocus series Verni back in the spring, but that's a messy imperfectly resolved species complex, so issues there aren't surprising.) Lavateraguy (talk) , 23 July 2018 (UTC) Is there a guideline for making a list of species article?

A major problem is that combining information from different databases (a) risks ending up with an inconsistent list, with synonyms of the same species included (b) is problematic in terms of WP: OR and WP: SYNTH.

My view is that you have to choose the apparently most reliable, say clearly in the article "As of DATE, MAIN_SOURCE accepts: As to which database is currently most reliable for Prunus, I'm not sure – for some large genera there just isn't a reliable database.

Leave a Reply