How to handle macroparasites

If you're identifying macroparasites from an animal sample -- say visual inspection for ectoparasites, or necropsy for endoparasites -- you might not be running "tests" on "samples" in the familiar sense. We suggest that you:

• Think about the animal itself as equivalent to the "sample",

• Report detailed information on both parasite collection and identification, including sequence data if used for molecular identification, and

• Report count data as "outcome data" as appropriate

For example, a researcher might report the identification of a shark tapeworm through a mix of both visual and molecular features, and include a link to the parasite sequence:

Host species	Collection method or tissue	Detection method	Detection outcome	Pathogen	GenBank accession
Squalus mitsukurii	Intestine (dissection)	Electron microscopy, NGS	Positive	Trilocularia eberti	GB8675309

Another researcher screening a bat for bat flies might report that they identified three batflies (Basilia fletcheri) on one individual, but another had no batflies of any kind:

	Sample ID	Animal ID	Host species	Detection target	Detection method
1	scdo001	scdo001	Scotozous dormeri	Nycteribiidae	Visual
2	scdo002	scdo002	Scotozous dormeri	Nycteribiidae	Visual

	Detection outcome	Pathogen	Detection measurement	Detection measurement units
1	Positive	Scotozous dormeri	3	Count
2	Negative	Scotozous dormeri	0	Count

Atypical data

Remember that PHAROS is only intended to be used with "line list" data of host-parasite associations. Examples of macroparasite observations that would be better suited for GBIF could include:

• Observation of mite presence in an entire beehive (not individual host level)

• Leech presence in a swamp (not an observation of a host-parasite interaction)

• A preserved parasite in a collection without any metadata on collection or host

Related: for questions about vector-borne pathogens as they interact with parasitic vectors, see the "Vector-borne disease" guide.