EDIT

this has already been implemented. Are there any issues with the implementations any registrations for which the name relations are not shown?

Check in production and test portal, please try these examples. There is no taxonomic relation entered.

IAPT-data:
Example: Phacus smulkowskianus(Zakryś) Kusber
Vaadin shows Basionym: Euglena smulkowskiana Zakryś, this is missing in Portal even though it is part of the registration.

PhycoBank Neudaten:
Halamphora semperpalorum (Wachn. & E.E.Gaiser) Rimet & R.Jahn
Vaadin shows Basionym: Amphora semperpalorum Wachn. & E.E.Gaiser
Hint: there is no blocking registration shown for Amphora semperpalorum.

Wolf-Henning Kusber wrote:

Check in production and test portal, please try these examples. There is no taxonomic relation entered.

IAPT-data:
Example: Phacus smulkowskianus(Zakryś) Kusber
Vaadin shows Basionym: Euglena smulkowskiana Zakryś, this is missing in Portal even though it is part of the registration.

PhycoBank Neudaten:
Halamphora semperpalorum (Wachn. & E.E.Gaiser) Rimet & R.Jahn
Vaadin shows Basionym: Amphora semperpalorum Wachn. & E.E.Gaiser
Hint: there is no blocking registration shown for Amphora semperpalorum.

You can not yet test this feature on the production server since the release 5.5 i not out yet. So I only took a look at edit-test:

• Halamphora semperpalorum: the name has a basionym relationship to Amphora semperpalorum which is visible in the dataportal - This is OK
  • the blocking registration is missing because blocking registrations where not created when the name relationship has been created.
• Phacus smulkowskianus(Zakryś) Kusber shows Euglena smulkowskiana Zakryś, in the portal - OK

I guess the basionym relation was hidden via the dataportal settings when you did the review.

The better formatting of the relations should be handled in a new ticket : #7975

I think we can close this ticket now, do you agree?

with respect to the open ticket #7975, we can close the current one.