You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Add that exact phrasing as source in the distribution extension. It will allow to differentiate between distributions for the same taxon or to exclude those for the unified checklist. Even though it is not the best way to write a source (i.e. not a proper citation), it is referenced as such in the paper (search on "solely") and thus more easily findable. Alternatively, we could use the proper citation:
But that doesn't clarify that that it was solely based on those or use the field occurrenceRemarks, but is seems to fit better with source. @qgroom preferences?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
if we use option 2, I would clearly indicate in the metadata that in this case, the ONLY source was DAISIE.
Nevertheless, I'm a fan of the first option as this is how we received the data
For records with the note:
Add that exact phrasing as
source
in the distribution extension. It will allow to differentiate between distributions for the same taxon or to exclude those for the unified checklist. Even though it is not the best way to write a source (i.e. not a proper citation), it is referenced as such in the paper (search on "solely") and thus more easily findable. Alternatively, we could use the proper citation:But that doesn't clarify that that it was solely based on those or use the field
occurrenceRemarks
, but is seems to fit better withsource
. @qgroom preferences?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: