Taxonomic Ranks not in DwC

[hollyel]

What ranks are regularly used in paleo records that do not currently have a matching DwC term? How often are these these ranks reported in dwc:taxonRank? See #27 (discussion of dwc:taxonRank)
How are data providers including these names if there isn't an appropriate term to put the name in? See #30 for current best solution (discussion of dwc:higherClassification)

[RogerBurkhalter]

A common issue would concern ichnofossils (ichnospecies/ichnogenus/ichnofamily etc.).
As ichnofossils represent a "preserved behavior" instead of a biological object, perhaps they should not be included in DwC, however, many museums routinely catalog and maintain collections of footprints, worm burrows, etc and even have published types of those objects.

[DimEvil]

https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:taxonRank
Are you referring to the 'controlled vocabulary' of DwC:TaxonRank ? I think you can use all the ranks you want in Dwc:TaxonRank. but we could extend the controlled vocabulary for specific paleo terms.

[ekrimmel]

For this issue we are referring to the existence of DwC terms like dwc:genus but not, e.g. dwc:subfamily. Although a data provider could specify that the value of dwc:scientificName has a dwc:taxonRank of “subfamily” there is not a DwC term to provide, in this case, the subfamily information in a parsed our field. It’s problematic primarily because of the ways that some aggregators currently match paleo specimen identifications against the GBIF Taxonomic Backbone.

[DimEvil]

ok! I C