New term - subtribe about dwc

[tucotuco]

Renewed interest expressed after second TDWG Darwin Core Maintenance Group Meeting 2021-11-11.

[JCGiron]

I support the inclusion of the term tribe in the standard.

I work primarily with beetles, in particular with the subfamily Entiminae (Family Curculionidae) which contains 55 tribes at the moment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entiminae). Whenever I want to download data only for a particular tribe of entimines, I have to sift through the entire Curculionidae download. The recent addition of subfamily makes things a little bit easier, but still, there are over 12000 species of entimines described, whereas some of my tribes of interest are around 300 species. Having the ability to easily download information for specific tribes would facilitate data processing.

[peterdesmet]

This proposal needs more evidence for demand (see the Vocabulary Maintenance Specification - Section 3.1). Anybody who is interested in the adoption/change of this term, should comment with their use case below. If demand is not demonstrated by the next annual review of open proposals (late 2020), this proposal will be dismissed.

[WUlate]

+1 From World Flora Online project to harvest DwCA files from content providers and ideally provide taxonomic data to Catalogue of Life and GBIF we've been using:.

<field index="8" term="http://rs.emonocots.org/terms/subfamily"/>
<field index="9" term="http://rs.emonocots.org/terms/tribe"/>
<field index="10" term="http://rs.emonocots.org/terms/subtribe"/>

And also:

<field index="28" term="http://rs.worldfloraonline/terms/majorGroup"/>
<field index="29" term="http://rs.worldfloraonline/terms/tplID"/>

As far as I know, these IRI's are not from "real" namespaces...

[tucotuco]

Closing for lack of demand.

[JuliCardonaD]

I also want to request the inclusion of the "Tribe" category and I would add to the past arguments that contributions from tropical countries to open access data have been increasing during the last years (even with some founding from GBIF and BID), and considering our biota are enormously rich (and frequently demand suprageneric and subfamilial categories) and phylogenetic classifications often led to propose tribal arrangements, it would be essential to give additional order and more holistic usage of the published data.

Definition: The full Latin name of the tribe in which the taxon is classified. Consider for animal taxa the suffix "-ini"; and for plants, fungi or algae taxa the suffix "-oidea"

Comment: Examples for animal taxa: "Eburini", "Derelomini"; Examples for plant taxa: "Carludovicoidea"

[debpaul]

@JCGiron @JuliCardonaD please if you can, also reach out to others you know who would want / benefit from / need this rank added to Darwin Core. Two ways (at least) they can help here.

• upvote your use cases here in GitHub (using the emojis for your comment/s)
• post their own use cases here (what barriers to your research or your collection management is lack of Tribe as rank causing for data discovery or data use)?
  • As in, As a researcher / collection manager, ecologist, ...
  • I need Tribe - level - data, to
  • [do what?] better group the results of a search for [what purpose] data pertinent to my taxonomic group / geographic distribution / policy development / matrices (for keys) work. (Describe how it's a blocker).

[mdoering]

Another party using subtribe already in a different namespace is WFO. See latest dwca download for their meta.xml from which I quote an excerpt here:

	<field index="7" term="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/family"/>
	<field index="8" term="http://rs.emonocots.org/terms/subfamily"/>
	<field index="9" term="http://rs.emonocots.org/terms/tribe"/>
	<field index="10" term="http://rs.emonocots.org/terms/subtribe"/>
	<field index="11" term="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/genus"/>
	<field index="12" term="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/subgenus"/>

[DaveNicolson]

Sorry for cross-posting this... I was alerted to the discussions about proposed new ranks (superfamily, subfamily, tribe and subtribe), and thought it might be good to note that there is a fair amount of use of these ranks in ITIS, especially in Animalia. In that kingdom, here are the counts of the valid/accepted names at those ranks, as a quick data point:

rank_name Animalia
Superfamily 577
Subfamily 2534
Tribe 1634
Subtribe 176

Clearly, some are in use more than others. I would argue that the superfamily level and subfamily level are not at all uncommon, particularly in some groups.