No interactions present.
Why does iSpot refer to Rudbeckia laciniata? Strange!
Probably because the common name is Coneflower
and the system is keyed into them through the get recommended. Two or more genus sharing the same common/vernacular name.
You should be offered a choice where the common name is ambiguous. If you choose the wrong one, just add a new ID with the correct one.
University of Edinburgh and Biodiversity Observatory (OU)
That's great, but in this case the correct scientific name has been chosen. It's the references to the EoL and distribution map that are incorrect.
Ah, right, I had missed that. I see what you mean. That should not have happened. We'll look into it.
What iSpot does is to try and find a match for the scientific name first, but when it can't find that it tries to match the English name.
The name "Echinacea purpurea" is not in the iSpot version of the NBN dictionary, probably because it is not a wild plant and is not included in the Botanical Society (BSBI) checklist.
So iSpot then looks for the name "Coneflower", which is in the dictonary but is associated with Rudbeckia laciniata.
It appears that the name "Coneflower" has been associated with a range of different species, see:
On iSpot we have been following the procedure that we are going to use the NBN dictionary as it stands, in order to maintain consistency and ensure that the names on iSpot can be traced back to an authoritative source. However, this does mean that for species that aren't in the dictionary there is a chance of getting erratic results from the links, as has happened here.
It's always been possible to use names on iSpot that aren't in the dictionary, in order to allow for exactly this situation, but the links are generated automatically and thus do end up going to the wrong place in a few cases.
If you want to look at Echinacea purpurea on EoL it is here (there is no NBN map for it):
Entomologist and biological recorder
Lat/Lng: 51.5, -0.1
OS grid ref: TQ3286