taxonomy: list taxa in rank order, then alphabetically by scientific name

[bouteloua]

Are there plans to improve the taxonomy displays on the taxon pages?
In the current setup, species, for example, are sandwiched between other infrageneric taxa because it is purely sorting alphabetically by scientific name.

It would be great if listed taxa could be displayed such that:
-1st sort by taxon rank, with higher taxa first
-2nd sort alphabetically by scientific name

e.g. in the below, C sp1, 2, and 3 have no known subgeneric ranking and so, are appropriately placed directly under the genus.

Genus C (current sorting)

• Subgenus B (C subg. B)
  
• C sp1
• C sp2
• C sp3
• C × hyb
  
• Subgenus Z (C subg. Z)

Genus C (preferred sorting)

• Subgenus B (C subg. B)
• Subgenus Z (C subg. Z)
• C sp1
• C sp2
• C sp3
• C × hyb

It is the same case with higher taxa, not just genus/subgenus/species.

It would also help highlight errors such as when a species is directly grafted to a family (instead of genus) or a subspecies directly grafted to a genus (instead of species). I frequently find those but might even more frequently if they were at the bottom of the list.

It would also be great if I could display *all* children and then choose to sort alphabetically. : )

cassi

[Chris Vynbos]

>It would also be great if I could display *all* children and then choose to sort alphabetically. : )

I second this, for genera as well as for species. Sometimes i can't find a genus as it is hidden in a tribe, so I have to open a lot of tribes to find what i'm looking for.  And the reason I can't just search for the genus is that  I'm *terrible* at remembering the full word, but I'm pretty good at remembering either the first few letters, or just the 'shape' of the word %/. Could we also sort them by shapes? :P 

[tony rebelo]

Are you really asking for the same thing?

I suspect that you are requesting being able to explode every taxon, so that the next level is visible.  

The proposal here will not allow you to see the genera hidden within the tribes, but only those genera that are not assigned to tribes.

[cassi saari]

I was a two-for-one feature request (check the original message).
WoRMS does this. e.g.
http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=411754 under direct children [show all] changes to
http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=411754&allchildren=1

cassi

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/8gMV7L7qJLQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[tony rebelo]

I'm male!   I cannot multitask.  One feature per request please!!

Yes, I know WoRMS.  

While we are making requests about the lists:

What I would really like is to know how many observations there are for each of the taxa visible in the list.  

e.g. What is the most recorded taxon, and which taxa have no observations.  - just in parentheses after each name.

(yes, onc can see ww.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=129714&view=species the species (not taxa)  in descending order on the Observations page with the taxon filter from the taxon tab, but which species have nothing, and where is Protea rupicola?)

cassi

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

[cassi saari]

do I get a prize?

cassi

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:08 PM, tony rebelo <tony.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

 and where is Protea rupicola?

[tony rebelo]

LOL!!!  It seems I have to teach you guys rhetorical questions as well (as satyre, sarcasm, and all the other things I have been accused of).

You do deserve a prize though for making the subgeneric system work for the genus Protea: thanks you are a star.

PS: Weird - Protea rupicola is a really difficult species to get to - high altitude exposed cliffs.  Its high ranking on iNat is utterly inappropriate to its accessibility and abundance.  No doubt the common species will soon overtake it totally, but its current ranking is quite unexpected.

[tony rebelo]

Should we post this as a bug?  Please check.

The lower rank filter does not work for section and subsection..

check: 

works: genus: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?lrank=genus&place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=64517

genus hybrid and Subgenus work: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?lrank=subgenus&place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=64517

BUT

section does not work: shows species and subspecies:: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?lrank=section&place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=64517

subsection does not work (as prev.):: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?lrank=subsection&place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=64517

&

species works (i..e does not show subspecies): https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?lrank=species&place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=64517

 

[Chris Vynbos]

Case in point: I had to go out of iNat to find a genus of Asteraceae. All I could remember is that it began with 'Pt' or maybe 'Pet' (infact it was Pteronia). Try find that in the list of Asteraceae genera: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/47604-Asteraceae. It will take ages as it is hidden in a subfamily and then in a tribe. And expanding and collapsing subfamily and tribes  is so laborious in iNat as the page has to re-load each time (or am I don't it wrong?). in the end I had to go to wikipedia's page of the genera of Asteraceae to find an alphabetical list. 

On Monday, 26 February 2018 15:38:19 UTC+2, bouteloua wrote:

[cassi saari]

Y

​eah, if there were a [+] to *view* the children but not reload the page, that would be great.​

[Asteraceae is a huge work-in-progress. I think all the genera were originally added to iNat directly to the family. That goes for most taxa on iNat. But with 5300+ observations on iNat in Asteraceae that are ranked between subfamily and tribe, it seems quite important to have those taxonomic ranks represented on iNat, so I and others have been slowly chipping away at the sorting when possible. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?hrank=subfamily&lrank=subtribe&place_id=any&subview=grid&taxon_id=47604]

cassi

[Chris Vynbos]

> https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?hrank=subfamily&lrank=subtribe&place_id=any&subview=grid&taxon_id=47604]

Cool. How did you generate that view? was it URL manipulation or is there a way on iNat?

[cassi saari]

You can choose the high rank and low rank in the filters. 

[tony rebelo]

Come on an iNat course!!!  Will show you that and hundreds of other cool tricks.

[tony rebelo]

No response: am elevating this to a topic!

[Chris Vynbos]

As i've told you, I don't have a laptop. And anyway, it's fun finding things out by interacting with the iNat community.

Why not record you next seminar and put it on youtube?