Hello PR2 team,
Many thanks for maintaining the PR2 database — it’s an invaluable resource that we use to annotate 18S sequences for publishing DNA-derived occurrence data to SBDI and GBIF.
We’ve run into some issues when separating genus from species epithet, though, since underscores (_) are used both between genus and species (e.g. Genus_species) in the species column, and within some genus names (e.g. Cheilostomatida_XX, Anaerolineaceae_UCG001, Salpingoeca_M, NS10_marine_group, Candidatus_ names).
There are also cases where the genus column doesn’t match the genus part of the species name (e.g. genus = Telonema-Group-1, species = Telonema_subtile).
I’m sure there are historical and practical reasons for this structure, but I was wondering if there are any plans to provide a clearer separation of the species epithet, for instance as a dedicated field, as it would be a great help for us (and maybe others) in data processing and publishing.
Thanks again for your work on PR2!
Best,
Maria
Hello PR2 team,
Many thanks for maintaining the PR2 database — it’s an invaluable resource that we use to annotate 18S sequences for publishing DNA-derived occurrence data to SBDI and GBIF.
We’ve run into some issues when separating genus from species epithet, though, since underscores (_) are used both between genus and species (e.g. Genus_species) in the species column, and within some genus names (e.g. Cheilostomatida_XX, Anaerolineaceae_UCG001, Salpingoeca_M, NS10_marine_group, Candidatus_ names).
There are also cases where the genus column doesn’t match the genus part of the species name (e.g. genus = Telonema-Group-1, species = Telonema_subtile).
I’m sure there are historical and practical reasons for this structure, but I was wondering if there are any plans to provide a clearer separation of the species epithet, for instance as a dedicated field, as it would be a great help for us (and maybe others) in data processing and publishing.
Thanks again for your work on PR2!
Best,
Maria