Types in PhycoBank
In general, gathering and type and specimen information is displayed in different more or less standardised ways. See Word file.
PhycoBank: Search page (Test portal 2019-07-19):
http://phycobank.org/100627 Registration on 2019-06-17 18:53:42
Sanguina Leya, Procházková & Nedbalová NameType: Sanguina nivaloides Procházková, Leya & Nedbalová Leya, T., Poulíčková, A. & Nedbalová, L. - in Procházková, L., Leya, T., Křížková, H. & al., Who is causing red snow? – Description of a new clade: Sanguina nivaloides, sp. et gen. nov. (Chlorophyta), based on data about its geographic distribution, ecology, morphology and molecular phylogeny. in FEMS Microbiology Ecology; NameType: orig. des., Sanguina nivaloides Procházková, Leya & Nedbalová Leya, T., Procházková, L. & Nedbalová, L. - in Procházková, L., Leya, T., Křížková, H. & al., Sanguina nivaloides and Sanguina aurantia gen. et spp. nov. (Chlorophyta): The taxonomy, phylogeny, biogeography and ecology of two newly recognised algae causing red and orange snow. in FEMS Microbiology Ecology 95(6): 1-24. 2019:9
http://phycobank.org/101398 Registration on 2019-06-17 18:44:22
Sanguina aurantia Leya, Procházková & Nedbalová Type: Norway, Svalbard, Wedel Jarlsberg Land, Hornsund, snowfield at the south foot of Fugleberget, Isbjörnhamna, alt. 55 m, 77°0'42.156"N, 15°32'13.2"E, 6.10.2010, T. Leya & G. Weithoff 005/10–1b. Holotype, B 40 0043197.; Isotype, B GT 0038001.
http://phycobank.org/100628 Registration on 2019-06-17 18:44:20
Sanguina nivaloides Procházková, Leya & Nedbalová Type: Norway, Svalbard, Nathorst Land, Steep snow field surrounded by moss vegetation and rocks, stretching down northwest to sea level from Mount Midterhuken (760 m a.s.l.), southwest of Mariasundet between Bellsund and Van Mijenfjorden, alt. 15 m, 77°39'44.298"N, 14°48'58.903"E, 4.8.2010, T. Leya & G. Weithoff 004/10. Holotype, B 40 0043192.; Isotype, B GT 0024094.; Type: Norway, Svalbard, Nathorst Land, northeastern part of Doktorbreen, alt. 430 m, 77°34'N, 16°53'59.999"E, 4.6.2004, T. Leya 013–01/04. Paratype, CCCryo RS 0003–2004.
This layout is okay except of the dot at the end. If special types are concatenated ".;" should be avoided.
Type: for the gathering information and specified types like "Holotype" with collection code and specimen number at the end is readable.
I would leave this as is.
Here the gathering data are duplicated. But (1) in the Expample there are different localities (Holotype and Paratype, or Lectotype and Epitype), (2) if stable identifiers to different collections are used this layout make sense. In this view (B 40 0043192) double B deleted, the brackets are okay for readability.
I am wondering, why the types are in a different order here. Paratype shoul be the last entry.
Between the types some space might be useful.
Registrations: ID(s) and registration date(s)are needed here. The other information is a duplicate of the above shown content.
Link to Taxon page?
Taxon Page (as of 2019-07-19):
shows additional the atomised specimen information.
1. The standard message of EDIT is very confusing for users and should be omitted. My argument is context-driven: we do not have any taxonomy and no real classification but the information implies that the taxon is not accepted by PhycoBank "This concept of the taxon Sanguina nivaloides Procházková, Leya & Nedbalová in FEMS Microbiology Ecology 95(6): 13, fig. 2-4. 17.6.2019 sec. PhycoBank is not contained as an accepted taxon in the currently chosen classification."
2. Taxon relations are a nice-to-have.
3. Cache okay
4. atomised information good.I am wondering why "Specimen type designations:" is not filled here because the specimen has be entered because it is a special type.