IUCN Red List data observations

The table below lists assessments whose recorded scientific name does not agree with the separate fields it should be built from. For each assessment, a name is rebuilt from the genus, species, infra rank, and subpopulation fields and compared against the recorded scientificName. The CSV export also records the scientificName in two places, its assessments and taxonomy files, and those two copies are compared as well. A row appears where the two copies disagree, where the name cannot be rebuilt from the component fields, or where an expected genus, species, infra-name, or subpopulation word is missing from the recorded name. Comparisons are exact after whitespace normalisation. A hybrid marker (×) or deliberately unusual formatting can make a name fail the rebuild without anything being wrong.

Why it matters

The recorded name and the component fields are two representations of the same taxon. When they disagree, it is unclear which is authoritative, and anything built from the components (sort keys, rebuilt names, joins) diverges from the displayed name.

Suggestion

Check each row against the source assessment and bring the recorded name and the component fields into agreement. Hybrids and deliberately unusual formatting can be left as they are.