<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Forum — Fungus name problem in Rec 2002]]></title>
		<link>https://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?id=298</link>
		<atom:link href="https://forums.nbn.org.uk/extern.php?action=feed&amp;tid=298&amp;type=rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in Fungus name problem in Rec 2002.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:02:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>PunBB 1.4.6</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Fungus name problem in Rec 2002]]></title>
			<link>https://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?pid=1411#p1411</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>I <em>think</em> that this is a problem in the underlying species dictionary. The original version of the BMS checklist that was added (version 1) included Boletus badius Fr. twice - as a recommended name, but also as a synonym of Polyporus badius (Pers.) Schwein.</p><p>This has been corrected in the current, maintained version of the list (version 2), but that&#039;s not much help if you aren&#039;t using it!</p><p>I&#039;ll make the correction and it wil be included in a future update. Members of this forum should be able to confirm whether this is likely to be the cause of the problem and if so, suggest a short-term fix.</p><p>Best wishes,<br />John</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (johnt)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:02:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?pid=1411#p1411</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Fungus name problem in Rec 2002]]></title>
			<link>https://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?pid=1402#p1402</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>I&#039;ll pass your question on to him, may take a little while as he isn&#039;t broadband</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (Darwyn Sumner (LERC))]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 09:23:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?pid=1402#p1402</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Fungus name problem in Rec 2002]]></title>
			<link>https://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?pid=1400#p1400</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Darwyn, could you check to see what species is recorded in the Determinations tab of the occurrence?</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (charlesroper)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 09:14:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?pid=1400#p1400</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Fungus name problem in Rec 2002]]></title>
			<link>https://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?pid=1399#p1399</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>I have the follwing message from my County Fungus Group (same one as has thousand of records on the NBN Gateway)<br /></p><div class="quotebox"><blockquote><p>I have met with an error in Recorder which is irritating, and could cause me to waste a lot of time.&nbsp; &nbsp; Every time I try to enter a record for the common species Boletus badius, the programme records it as Polyporus badius.&nbsp; &nbsp;The latter name is obsolete, but when it was in use referred to a quite different fungus.&nbsp; &nbsp; Could I trouble you to try out your version of the Dictionary, to see if the trouble is endemic in Recorder.&nbsp; &nbsp; Sorry to trouble you, but this really is annoying - Tom</p></blockquote></div><p>Is there a fix for this in Recorder 2002 which he could make and which won&#039;t involve me in taking a day off to go and fix it for him.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (Darwyn Sumner (LERC))]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 09:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?pid=1399#p1399</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
