Recommended best practices when a subset of observations of a single taxon have vouchered physical samples?

[kingenloff]

What are the recommended best practices when multiple individuals of a single taxon within the scope of a study are observed, and from that observation and count, measurements and physical materials are collected from a small subset? For example, 30 individuals of species F are observed and counted. From those 30 individuals, 5 individuals are measured and physical material collected with associated vouchers.

Is it best to:

• register a single occurrence (a single row) for the 25 observed and counted individuals (dwc:organismQuantity = 25) and a single occurrence for each of the 5 individuals sampled and measured, and populate eco:isLestSpecificTargetCategoryQuantityInclusive = F.
• OR to include all 30 individuals in the single occurrence row (dwc:organismQuantity = 30), a single occurrence for each of the 5 individuals sampled and measured, populate eco:isLestSpecificTargetCategoryQuantityInclusive = T, and then perhaps use related resource to tie the vouchered samples to the occurrence cluster.

[ymgan]

Great question @kingenloff !

Is there any measurements or ?evidence associated with the 30 individuals? For example:

• measurement: total weight of the 30 individuals
• evidence: a photo of the group of 30 individuals

If that is the case, I think your option 2 would make more sense.

I think option 2 is probably closer to how the researchers would record the data, so it should probably save them the hassle to do the math (30 - 5 = 25) and hence, less error prone. That is probably what I would do. I also feel this is more intuitive.

I am curious what the others think~

[sunray1]

@ymgan - doubtful there are photos associated with the group of 30 but likely there are measurements (i.e. weight measurements) for the 30. Which is why potentially we need to keep the group of 30 as a record itself?

[tucotuco]

I think the second option is the best one too.

…

On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 11:13 AM Chandra Earl ***@***.***> wrote: @ymgan <https://github.com/ymgan> - doubtful there are photos associated with the group of 30 but likely there are measurements (i.e. abundance measurements) for the 30. Which is why potentially we need to keep the group of 30 as a record itself? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#101 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADQ72ZTBWIIT2SKUYGDEJLZBIXGZAVCNFSM6AAAAABHIRL2BOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMBQGY4DGNRSGU> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jerome-cjko]

Hi, I'm a bit confused on how to interpret the total abundance of that event when we use second option.

If my understanding is correct, second option will result into 6 rows of occurrence of species F in the target event, with 1 row having dwc:organismQuantity = 30, the other 5 rows having dwc:organismQuantity = 1 each, and with all rows populate eco:isLestSpecificTargetCategoryQuantityInclusive = T.

In that case, I will will count this event of having a total of 30+1+1+1+1+1 = 35 individuals of species F.

Or did I misinterpret anything here?

[ymgan]

@jerome-cjko I am not sure if I understand

with all rows populate eco:isLeastSpecificTargetCategoryQuantityInclusive = T.

Can you give us an example in tabular form please? Can you also please have a look at the documentation of eco:isLeastSpecificTargetCategoryQuantityInclusive to see if clarifies your question?

Thanks a lot!

[jerome-cjko]

@ymgan I meant something like this:

| occurrencID | scientificName | organismQuantity | isLeastSpecificTargetCategoryQuantityInclusive |
| occ1 | Species F | 30 | T |
| occ2 | Species F | 1 | T |
| occ3 | Species F | 1 | T |
| occ4 | Species F | 1 | T |
| occ5 | Species F | 1 | T |
| occ6 | Species F | 1 | T |

But thanks for providing the documentation of eco:isLestSpecificTargetCategoryQuantityInclusive, I think I do have my question answered. Still new to the Humboldt extension!