Scientific name and ID inconsistent flag for occurrences normalised to WoRMS

[CecSve]

The original issue is mentioned here: gbif/portal-feedback#5922

32 records which are flagged as Scientific name and ID inconsistent yet as far as I can tell the ID matches the name.

For example, this record is normalised to Myxicola Meneghini, 1847 from Myxicola Koch in Renier in Meneghini, 1847, which matches the current GBIF backbone, but the WoRMS checklist entry does have the full authorship in the verbatim record and the WoRMS database.

When I try to parse the name, the Type is BLACKLISTED (which I do not know if is relevant, but it is not documented in the 'About' section), but I am wondering if it is the parser that strips the authorship although it is present in the source?

[mdoering]

indeed. https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/2011/taxon/urn%3Alsid%3Amarinespecies.org%3Ataxname%3A129537
Not sure whats going wrong here, but it is likely related to the unparsable authorship in both cases, worms and the occurrence.

[mdoering]

What does a double in citation actually represent? Koch described the name in an article from Renier who himself published that inside a book by Meneghini in 1847 ???

[mdoering]

Definitely a really bad parsing, it is considered a species Myxicola (Koch) in:
https://api.checklistbank.org/parser/name?q=Myxicola%20Koch%20in%20Renier%20in%20Meneghini,%201847

Hence the blacklisted in epithet.