deletions | additions       diff --git a/Linking_by_name_will_struggle__.md b/Linking_by_name_will_struggle__.md  index 9ab35ad..49c365d 100644  --- a/Linking_by_name_will_struggle__.md  +++ b/Linking_by_name_will_struggle__.md 
...
Typically integration across biodiversity databases is achieved using taxonomic names \cite{Patterson_2010}, but the rise of dark taxa makes this problematic for an increasing fraction of sequence-based data. Even if we have names, these need not always mean the same thing \cite{Kennedy_2003}. As an example, Fig x shows the distribution of the lizard _Morethia obscura_ from GBIF. For comparison, Fig. y shows a geophylogeny \cite{Page_2015} for DNA barcodes for Morethia obscura from BOLD, which reveals considerable phylogeographic structure. These barcodes comprise x BINs, implying that "Morethia obscura" may comprise multiple species. it is not at all clear that _Morethia obscura_ in these two databases represents the same thing.  What GBIF and BOLD do share in this example are specimens. The DNA barcode WAMMS011-10 WAMMS012-10  comes from the specimen WAMR127632, WAMR127637,  which is also in GBIF (http://gbif.org/occurrence/691832244). (http://gbif.org/occurrence/691832260).  So, one way to integrate these two databases is at the level of specimens rather than taxa. Of course, this need not always be straightforward. The biodiversity informatics community has yet to standardise identifiers for specimens, despite numerous efforts \cite{Guralnick_2015}, consequently there may be little apparent overlap between specimens identifiers in different databases \cite{Guralnick_2014}.