You are the best Rachel ..thanks for being there...truly...

Hi @mdoering.bsky.social, we would love to be considered as a replacement once the entire transfer is completed. At this stage, though, we are not there yet, but we are working on it with the Species File Group to make it happened ASAP. :-)

Thank you so much for considering us! :-)

We absolutely should! Let's do it!

We can easily discuss it! :-) Feel free to email me and we can chat better! :-)

Thank you! We would like to work on it next. We tried to focus on the "smallest" subfamily first (I am tackling Ichneumoninae, but that's just me). We are done with them and we are movign to the medium one (which Rhyssinae is in). I will start with that right away. Unless, you want to help us! :-)

Hi @tapani-hopkins.bsky.social, in WID we count 25 worldichneumonidae.com#/otus/681611...

It is possible that GBIF did not count some? This is one of the completed subfamily in the database! :-)

Agreed! And at some point we should find a way to connect WID with ichsofna (integrating them in some way). The future seems wonderful! :-)

...and last thing: we are working on having all the "old names" updated very soon. We may have found a way to import all the names faster! Stay tuned!

Even if WID was updated and could push name into GBIF or CoL, I am not sure how this will interact with the automatic push from these other catalogues/sources. The good thing is that a wrong authorship (also in a paper) does not create an unavailable name (only confusion).

I would also add to what @rdmpage.bsky.social said: the World Ichneumonidae Database is still not pushing names or data to GBIF or CoL (yet). We are will implement these passages once all the old names are included into WID.

I would say so. :-)