It demonstrates a number of issues, the main one being it is not clear what the intent of the GBIF submitter was.
Mytilus edulis Linnaeus 1758 <= Appears to be the correct name
Mytilus edulis Linné 1758 <= Appears to be a lexical variant of the correct name
Mytilus edulis d' Orbigny <= Is this an error, a different description or a different species?
Mytilus edulis Pennant <= Is this an error, a different description or a different species?
Mytilus edulis <= Is this an ommission, an error, a different description or a different species?
The intent of the GBIF contributor is in some cases not clear from the list above.
It is unclear what species they actually mean, and it is unclear if intend on entailing a specific classification or not.
Was it clear that they thought Mytilus edulis Linnaeus 1758 = Mytilus edulis Linné 1758 or not?
How do you determine their intent from the simple name string?
I think the intent be clearer if the submitter included a species concept URI with their submission.
A URI that showed that a species has multiple often dynamic classifications, some of which are linkable via semantic web URI's.
For example:
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Mollusca
Class Bivalvia
Subclass Heterodonta
Order Mytiloida
Family Mytilidae
Subfamily Mytilinae
Genus Mytilus
Species Mytilus edulis
ITIS (79454)
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Mollusca
Class Bivalvia
Subclass Pteriomorphia
Order Mytiloida
Family Mytilidae
Genus Mytilus
Species Mytilus edulis
WORMS (140480)
Biota
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Mollusca
Class Bivalvia
Subclass Pteriomorphia
Order Mytiloida
Family Mytilidae
Genus Mytilus
Species Mytilus edulis
CoL (6979242)
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Mollusca
Class Bivalvia
Order Mytiloida
Family Mytilidae
Genus Mytilus
Species Mytilus edulis
cellular organisms
Eukaryota
Fungi/Metazoa group
Metazoa
Eumetazoa
Bilateria
Coelomata
Protostomia
Mollusca
Bivalvia
Pteriomorphia
Mytiloida
Mytiloidea
Mytilidae
Mytilinae
Mytilus
Mytilus edulis
EUNIS
Kingdom
Animalia
Phylum
MOLLUSCA
Class
Bivalvia
Order
Anisomyaria
Family
Mytilidae
Genus
Mytilus
Mytilus edulis Linné, 1758
The example below is not the same species as above but it shows how the intent might be made clearer.
* This would be better if the concept description had more data like photo's, type specimens etc, but it does link to them and DNA barcodes.
* If this did not go through your email correctly you can get to it from the
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/Zom2X.html or
http://bit.ly/hyTnXf
These are not perfect but they already make it more clear what data sets relate to the same species and what data sets relate to different species.
By linking to one of these, you are accepting that a species can have multiple classifications and there can be multiple names for the your intended concept.