EDIT

Distribution data for caucasus taxa from "Konspekt flory Kavkaza" has been entered into a seperate database (euromed-caucasus) some time ago (#7921).

On 2020-08-18 we (ERS, NK, AK, AM) had a meeting to discuss how to handle these data which are using areas which differ from the typical E+M caucasus areas. The following is the outcome of this meeting:

1. for the E+M dataportal only the existing E+M areas should be shown, data needs to be aggregated to these areas
2. where data is ambigous as the E+M area hierarchie and the conspectus areas are ambigous sometimes (conspectus areas may have 2 parent areas in the E+M hierarchy) aggregated data need to be flaged doubtful if no other data exists which is not doubtful. Question: what if the distribution status differs in the later case.

3. there are 5 conspectus areas which are ambigous when mapped to E+M areas:

   a. VK which belongs mostly to Nothern Caucasus but the subarea Kubinsky belongs belongs to Azerbaidjan
   b. The Eastern Transcaucasus areas Alazan-Agrichay, Iori-Sheki, Murghuz-Murovdagh: they belong partly to Georgia and partly to Azerbaidjan
   c. The nothern border of Central and parts of Eastern Transcaucasia seems to be a bit more south then the country borders between Georgia and Russia

4. issue 3c will be checked by NK if the border really differs from the country border or if the map is inaccurate at this point

5. data in 3b needs to be aggregated in the way that doubtful distribution data will be created for Geogia and Azerbaidjan

6. data in 3a needs to be doubfully aggregated to Northern Caucasus and Azerbaijan

7. generally data was entered on sub-area level, however it looks like main-areas were used if data existed for ALL subareas (we tested this for Dianthus barbatus which has data "Eastern Caucasus" and in the book it has data for all 4 sub-areas, while Atriplex fominii has data only for the Eastern Caucasus sub-areas Kubinsky and Manas-Samur but no data for the main area itself. This rule still needs to be further validated. Also it needs to be checked what has been edited if all sub-areas existed but with different status.

8. as the handling described in 7. differs from the typical handling in E+M (and from best practice) where data for all sub-areas is entered if it exists in all sub-areas we may need a script that creates the sub-area data for these cases (and deletes the main area data)
   ).

9. for the caucasus dataportal the sub-area data should be shown if it exists, in some cases this may lead to overlapping area information as data may come from different sources (conspectus and other sources, using the E+M areas), generally this is not a problem for the maps (but maybe for the textual representation which requires hierarchical areas), problems here will be discussed later

10. the shapefile does not need hierarchical information and therefore can be created straight forward (#9161)

The map:

and https://www.binran.ru/upload/caucasian/images/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_html_181329b1.jpg

Tervuren geoserver: http://edit.africamuseum.be/geoserver/topp/wms?service=WMS&version=1.1.0&request=GetMap&layers=topp:euromed_2013&styles=&bbox=-1600072.75,-1800000.0,5600000.0,5850093.0&width=481&height=512&srs=EPSG:7777777&format=application/openlayers