Best Practice Guide
for Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating
National Species Checklists
Michelle Hamer, Janine Victor & Gideon F. Smith
Version 1.0

October 2012

Suggested citation
Hamer, M., Victor, J., Smith, G.F. (2012). Best Practice Guide for Compiling, Maintaining
and Disseminating National Species Checklists, version 1.0, released in October 2012.
Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, 40 pp, ISBN: 87-92020-48-8,
Accessible at http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=4752.

ISBN: 87-92020-48-8 (10 digits), 978-87-92020-48-2 (13 digits).
Persistent URI: http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=4752.
Language: English.

Copyright © Hamer, M., Victor, J., Smith, G.F. & Global Biodiversity
Information Facility, 2012
This document was produced in collaboration with the South African National
Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).

License:This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Document Control:
Version0.1
1.0

Description
First complete draft, released for
public review
First public final version of the
document.

Date of release
April 2012
October 2012

Author(s)Hamer, Victor &Smith.
Hamer, Victor &Smith.

Cover Art Credit: GBIF Secretariat, 2012. Image by Zsuzsanna Kilian (Hungary),obtained by stock.xchng (http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1024631).

ii

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

About GBIFThe Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) was established as a global megascience initiative to address one of the great challenges of the 21st century –harnessing knowledge of the Earth’s biological diversity. GBIF envisions ‘a world inwhich biodiversity information is freely and universally available for science, society,and a sustainable future’. GBIF’s mission is to be the foremost global resource forbiodiversity information, and engender smart solutions for environmental and humanwell-being1. To achieve this mission, GBIF encourages a wide variety of data publishers
across the globe to discover and publish data through its network.

1

GBIF (2011). GBIF Strategic Plan 2012-16: Seizing the future. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information
Facility. 7pp. ISBN: 87-92020-18-6. Accessible at http://links.gbif.org/sp2012_2016.pdf
October 2012iii

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

About SANBIThis guide has been produced by the South African National Biodiversity Institute(SANBI) through funding from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). SANBI
serves the South African government and public as the primary statutory institution
devoted to the study, conservation, display and promotion of the country’s indigenous
biodiversity. SANBI is tasked to lead the biodiversity research agenda, provide
knowledge and information, give policy support and advice, manage gardens as‘windows’ to our biodiversity for leisure, enjoyment, spiritual upliftment andeducation, and engage in ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation programmes andbest-practice models to manage biodiversity better.
The Biosystematics Division has a staff component of 63 people spread across the three
SANBI herbaria (National Herbarium in Pretoria, Compton Herbarium in Cape Town and
the KwaZulu-Natal Herbarium in Durban). Staff members of the Biosystematics Division
are responsible for discovering, documenting and describing the plants of South Africa,
for maintaining and providing access to the collections, for identifying plants forstakeholders, and for the maintenance and expansion of the plant specimen and taxon
database. SANBI was, until 2005, the National Botanical Institute. The Biodiversity Act
required that the Institute broaden its focus to include all biodiversity. No checklist ofanimal or fungi species exists for South Africa, and this has been highlighted as apriority need by a wide range of stakeholders. SANBI does not employ animal or fungal
taxonomists but it has responsibility for developing and maintaining checklists forthese taxa. The checklist for South Africa’s more than 60,000 animal species has now
been initiated. The process of developing policies and procedures for both compilingand updating checklists, and the recent efforts to compile the animal checklists haveprovided a range of insights into developing species lists for a country.
The information presented in this document is based on personal experiences andopinions of the authors, on the input from the research staff of the Biosystematics
Division through a workshop funded by GBIF, and on relevant documentation presented
on the Internet or in the literature (which are referenced). Most of the examples used
are South African, but they have relevance for other countries.
The document does not provide the technical / information technology details forchecklist compilation, maintenance and dissemination because these were dealt with

October 2012iv

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

in two GBIF documents on Publishing Species Checklists: Best practices2 and Global
Names Architecture Profile Reference Guide for Darwin Core Archives3. The current
guide will also not provide detailed recommendations regarding the format or
structure of checklists either for management or dissemination, because this is dealt
with elsewhere by GBIF.
The main purpose of this best practice document is to provide guidance for policy
and procedures relating to accessing and capturing information for national
checklists, and to highlight some key issues which should be considered topromote standardization, quality and use of these products.

2

GBIF (2011) Best practices in publishing checklists. Contributed by Remsen, D., Döring, M., & Robertson, T.
Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, 20pp. Accessible online at
http://links.gbif.org/checklist_best_practices.
3
GBIF (2011) GNA Profile Reference Guide for Darwin Core Archives, version 1.0. Contributed by Remsen D.P.,
Döring, M, Robertson, T. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, 28 pp. Accessible at
http://links.gbif.org/gbif_gna_profile_reference_guide.
October 2012v

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Table of Contents
1. Summary .................................................................................... 1
2. Background ................................................................................. 3
2.1. What are national species checklists? .............................................. 3
2.1.1. Form of the checklist ..................................................................... 5
2.1.2. Organization of the information ........................................................ 5
2.1.3. National checklists are dynamic and maintained..................................... 6

2.2. Purpose and users of national species checklists ................................. 7
2.3. Who compiles checklists? ............................................................. 9
3. Developing a checklist .................................................................. 10
3.1. History of South Africa’s plant checklist: an ideal situation .................. 10
3.2. Compiling a checklist ............................................................... 11
3.2.1. Using taxon experts to compile the checklist ........................................ 11
3.2.2. Compiling the list in the absence of experts ......................................... 11
3.2.3. Extracting a checklist from a specimen database ................................... 11
3.2.4. A major work exists, but this is broader than the country, is outdated, and is
only available in print. .......................................................................... 12
3.2.5. Global checklists exist for a particular taxon or habitat ........................... 12
3.2.6. No checklists have been compiled for a particular taxon. ......................... 13

3.3 Which classification system to use? ................................................ 14
3.4. A stepwise approach to compiling a national checklist ........................ 15
3.5 Costs associated with compiling the lists ......................................... 18
4. Scope of the checklists ................................................................. 19
4.1 Policy on which species to include in the checklist ............................. 19
4.2 Critical data to include in the list .................................................. 19
4.3 Additional/optional data for inclusion ............................................ 224.4. Taxon or country-specific options for inclusion in the checklist ............. 24
4.5. Metadata for the checklist ......................................................... 25
5. Maintaining the checklist .............................................................. 26
5.1 Reasons for changes in the checklist (types of changes) ....................... 26
5.2 Approaches to updating the checklist and capacity required for different
scenarios .................................................................................... 26

October 2012vi

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

6. Format Options .......................................................................... 31
6.1 Options for capturing the checklist and considerations in selecting format . 31
6.2 Options for providing online access to the checklist and considerations inselecting format ........................................................................... 32
7. Copyright and data ownership issues for national checklists ................... 33
8. References ................................................................................ 34

October 2012vii

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

1. Summary
National checklists are invaluable resources which serve a range of functions forresearch and biodiversity-related activities. Ideally national checklists should be
integrated, coordinated and disseminated from a single platform.
National checklists should be compiled by expert taxonomists, but this is not always
possible, and non-experts with knowledge of nomenclature, taxonomy and access to
the relevant literature and to online biodiversity data resources such as GBIF can also
adequately carry out this activity.
The national policy and procedures should be documented for compiling andmaintaining national checklists in order to standardize and guide what is included andhow this should be done.
A core set of fields for national checklists includes the seven levels of classificationand the authority. Additional information for each species increases its value andcredibility, but also increases the time and effort required.
The format for compiling the checklist should ensure that it is accessible to a wide
range of compilers, in that it should be simple to use and easily modified. The format
in which the checklist is disseminated should allow searching using different criteria,
and should also enable download of datasets.

October 20121

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Recommended and optional fields for the checklist are as follows:
Recommended fields for checklist
Kingdom

Optional fields for checklist

Phylum/Division

Reference for original description of
speciesClass

Common / vernacular name(s)OrderType locality

FamilyType specimen repository

Genus

Type specimen catalogue number

SpeciesTaxonomic note(s)Species name authority + date

Indigenous / exotic

Synonyms + reference for eachDistribution at country level

Unique identifier for species

Distribution at provincial / state level

Source of species record (referenceor website)

Habitat

Author/compiler of checklist record

Economic importanceThreat status

Date of capture of species record
Date of amendment to record

Summary of the initial steps involved in compiling a national checklist:

October 20122

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

2. Background2.1. What are national species checklists?
National species checklists can also be referred to as country-level species catalogues
or inventories. In simple terms these can be described as the list of species recorded
from a country, but they can vary from a simple list of species’ names, usuallyscientific names, to an annotated list with various types of information associated witheach species. A catalogue is usually considered to have more taxonomic and reference
detail for each species and name than a checklist (see Catalogue of Life4 as an
example), and to be more authoritative because of the level of detail provided. An
inventory is usually derived from a catalogue, and species are organized according tosome classification system, but the taxonomic detail of the catalogue is lacking. GBIF’sguide to best practices for publishing species checklists5, which focuses on sharing
taxonomic checklist information in a standard way, provides a more detailed definition
for the different types of species checklists.
In this document a checklist is interpreted more broadly than as a simple list ofnames, and is probably more in line with the definition of a catalogue combinedwith an annotated checklist. This is because having a single national list, which
includes several different types of information, is more practical than having aseparate checklist, inventory and catalogue for a country, especially when resources
are limited and species richness is high. The objective of a national checklist should
be to coordinate, consolidate and disseminate basic taxonomic and species
information that is commonly required by a range of users. The checklist should
serve not only taxonomists, but also enable non-taxonomists to readily accessinformation about species, including which scientific name to use for any given taxon,
without having to understand the scientific intricacies, nuances and debates
surrounding names and classifications. The requirements of the users must therefore
be considered when a national checklist is designed and compiled.
One of the main requirements of a non-specialist for a particular taxon is to know
which name and classification framework to use when referring to a species or other

4

Catalogue of Life: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/

5

GBIF (2011) Best practices in publishing species checklists. Contributed by Remsen, D., Döring, M., &Robertson, T. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, 20pp. Accessible online at
http://links.gbif.org/checklist_best_practices.

October 20123

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

taxon (family, genus, subspecies for example). While taxonomists understand that
there is no one ‘correct’ classification system, and that the status of taxa may vary
according to which concept is applied, which characters are analysed, and how
analyses are interpreted, this is not especially helpful for most users of the checklist.
Probably the greatest challenge for anyone compiling and maintaining national
checklists is how to ensure that the list is scientifically credible and accommodates
different viewpoints, but at the same time provides the guidance required by nonspecialists. A national checklist may be for a defined taxonomic group, for example
the birds of South Africa, or it can be based on growth forms (e.g. the trees of South
Africa), habitats (e.g. the marine invertebrates of South Africa) or functional or
ecological roles (crop pests, alien invasive species); or it can be broader and cover all
species, usually within at most a Kingdom (e.g. the animals of South Africa). In
addition, while national species checklists are referred to here, infraspecific taxa
such as subspecies, varieties and even cultivars can also be accommodated,depending on country-specific needs, priorities and resources.
Surprisingly few countries have compiled and coordinated checklists of species, eventhough they have enormous value and are often referred to as providing the basic
information required for monitoring, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
A vast number of taxon-specific and other types of lists such as those for threatened
species or for protected areas do exist and have been published or are available on theInternet, but these lists are fragmented, are generally scattered across institutions andmay not publically accessible. Ideally national checklists should be made available
through one coordinated website, and one institution or organization should be
responsible for the coordination of the lists. The Netherlands6 and Australia7 eachhave a national biodiversity checklist site and several other countries have indicatedan intention to develop national checklists, which is probably a reflection of theincreasing recognition of the importance of such a resource.
National checklists should ideally be at as high a taxonomic level, or as inclusive
as possible, for example all angiosperms, rather than fragmented at a lower
taxonomic level such as by family. A more inclusive checklist, being a centralized
source of information, will have a wider audience, and while there are benefits tofocussing on lower taxonomic levels such as orders or families, this approach may leadto duplication, overlap or gaps and to inconsistency in what is included and in names
or classification systems used when species occur in more than one list. Checklists at a6

Nederlands Soortenregister - Dutch Species Catalogue: http://www.nederlandsesoorten.nl/nlsr/nlsr/english.html

7 ABRS | Fauna databases and online resources: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-

resources/fauna/index.html
October 2012

4

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

higher level (e.g. all animals or plants) provide a far more useful tool for monitoring
diversity, and for coordinating all taxonomic changes using a standard set of principles
and procedures. Compilation of the lists can be done at lower taxonomic levels by
relevant experts, but they should be coordinated and made accessible through one
platform.
The differences in botanical and zoological nomenclatural rules and taxonomy
probably constrain the development of a checklist beyond a single Kingdom.

2.1.1. Form of the checklist
National checklists can be published in hard copy, or in electronic format on a
website. National or country-wide checklists are generally not published in scientificjournals, because they are usually long and do not conform to the requirements ofjournals, but components of national lists such as order or family level checklists may
be accepted for publication. The benefit of publishing lists in journals is that they arepeer-reviewed and therefore have more credibility, and they can still be incorporated
into and distributed via a national checklist website. As a result of additions orchanges to checklists, published versions quickly become outdated, but they still havesome use as an assessment of the status of a taxon at a particular point in time.
Similarly, some taxonomists favour national checklists published in book format
because they represent a tangible output for which they receive credit, but the reality
is that all scientific names presented in such books will still need to be checked by auser against a dynamic electronic list. Hard copy books also need to be purchased andso are not as readily accessible to all stakeholders as electronic lists, which can bequickly and freely disseminated via the web or by email.
Because of the dynamic nature of checklists, it is recommended that a national
checklist intended to identify the most up-to-date status of names be provided
electronically. Electronic format allows regular updating; it allows updating ofcomponents of the checklist, rather than requiring the entire group to be updated atonce; it is more cost effective; and if published on the Internet in open access format,
provides information to a wide range of target audiences. In addition, publication inelectronic format may allow manipulation, including ordering and searching which is
not possible in print format, and it may allow the presentation of species organizedaccording to different classification systems.

2.1.2. Organization of the information
National checklists are usually organized according to a scientific classification system,with species referred to using their scientific name. Species are usually listed
October 20125

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

alphabetically within each genus, with genera listed alphabetically within each family,
but sometimes phylogenetic rather than alphabetic ordering may be used.

2.1.3. National checklists are dynamic and maintained
Compiling a list of species that have been recorded from a country and organizingthem according to a classification system may sound simple, but many complexities
have to be considered, associated with the description and naming of taxa and changes
resulting from later revisionary research. While we cannot provide a complete review
of taxonomic and nomenclatural principles and procedures, some of the main
complexities relevant to compiling and maintaining national checklists are briefly
mentioned here. For more detail, the reader should refer to the appropriate
nomenclatural codes (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature8, International
Code of Botanical Nomenclature9).
There is no single classification system that is accepted by all biologists. Classification
systems should reflect evolutionary relationships, but different types of data andanalyses of data may suggest different groupings (relationships) of taxa. This meansthat any classification system should be considered only as a hypothesis and it should
be recognized that there is no ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ classification system. Compilers
and managers of national checklists must deal with the challenges of deciding whichclassification system to use, and how to reflect published changes to andrearrangement of taxa in the classification system.
The status of taxa and names, especially in the case of genera and species, maychange for the following reasons:
A type specimen (i.e. the specimen on which the description is based) may have been
described as two different species, usually by different researchers at different times.
The type specimen can only have one ‘correct’ name, usually the first name by which
it was described, and the later name is considered to be a synonym of the original
name (an objective [zoology], or nomenclatural or homotypic [botany] synonym).
New combinations arise when a species is transferred from one genus to another.
Questions around the status of species include the following scenarios:
A taxonomist may refer to a specimen identified by one name, but another taxonomist
may not agree with the name used because he or she believes that the specimen moreclosely resembles the type of a different species. This is important for a national

89International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/
INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE online: ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm

October 20126

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

checklist, because one taxonomist might identify a species as occurring in a country
from specimens identified, but another taxonomist may consider that the specimens
have been misidentified, and therefore that the species may not actually be present in
the country. In this case the presence of a species in a country, and in other cases the
distribution of the species in the country, may be matters of opinion relating to
identification and interpretation of characters.
A species may be described based on a type specimen, with other specimens also
identified as the same species. Closer examination of the material may lead to therecognition that more than one species is represented, and several new species, eachwith its own type specimen, are then described. However, while some taxonomists
may agree with the splitting of what was previously considered to be one species,
others may not, and may simply consider the original species to be variable, with the
new species considered as synonyms (subjective [zoology] or heterotypic or taxonomic[botany] synonyms). In this case a decision would need to be made about how toreflect the different opinions in the checklist. This type of dilemma is becoming
increasingly common with DNA analyses which frequently indicate variation within a
species, but the amount of genetic variation required to reflect distinct species iscontentious.
There are different terms to reflect which taxa and which name associated with aparticular taxon is ‘correct’ (in botanical terms ‘accepted’, and in zoological terms‘valid’). Each species can only have one ‘correct’ (i.e. valid or accepted) name, but
the status of species can differ depending on the interpretation of the data bydifferent taxonomists and their concept of a species.

2.2. Purpose and users of national species checklists
Regardless of the field of scientific endeavour in biological and life sciences andbeyond, accurately recording and applying names to organisms are of primary andparamount importance. Once recorded and assembled into partial or comprehensive
checklists or catalogues, names take on an infinitely greater significance.
Considering the wide range of users of a checklist, the purposes of creating national
species checklists for organisms are:
To provide a list of the species known to occur in a country;
To provide clarity on the status of names and taxa;
To provide access to synonyms (names that are not considered to be valid or accepted)
of taxa so that users can track the fate of all names and identify the ‘correct’ namefor any organism;
October 20127

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

To provide a standardized classificatory framework for the placement of species andhigher taxa.
These four purposes are relevant for scientific publications, primary biodiversity
databases, and for the organization and labelling of biodiversity specimen collections
both living (in zoos, botanical gardens or fungal collections), and preserved (herbaria
or museums). This implies that all researchers, in any field, working with species
and compiling databases or referring to species in manuscripts should use anational checklist. In addition, legislators and regulators need to include the ‘correct’
name in documentation dealing with alien invasive, traded, cultivated, pest, harvestedor threatened species.
In addition to providing the ‘correct’ name, national checklists can also be used asfollows:
To enable the estimation of the diversity (richness) of a particular group, or overall
diversity within the country;
To track changes in the diversity (through for example, the addition of newly
described species) which can be used as an indicator of research effort; andTo identify knowledge gaps through flagging those higher taxa for which species
information is lacking or where taxonomic and nomenclatural problems are highlighted
in the list.
These uses are important for funding agencies and research managers in terms ofunderstanding how to prioritize the allocation of resources and develop capacity for
taxonomy.
An additional use of national checklists is to act as a planning and monitoring tool for:Tracking national contributions to global programmes such as the Encyclopedia of
Life10 and the Barcode of Life11. A species checklist assists effective planning, forsetting targets and identifying priority species/taxa to include in these programmes;
andTracking progress in terms of representation for species or suites of species by habitator by higher taxon for data mobilization (i.e. which species need to be focussed on for
occurrence data to provide comprehensive data sets) for national nodes of the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility.

1011

Encyclopedia of Life: http://eol.org/
IBOL: http://ibol.org/

October 20128

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

These activities would be important for national node / programme managers for
global programmes.

2.3. Who compiles checklists?
Traditionally, specialist taxonomists in the fields of botany, zoology, mycology andphycology employed at herbaria, museums and universities would compile and update
checklists. This is still the approach taken, but in many cases expertise does not exist
within a country and this role falls to non-specialists, including citizen scientists andpostgraduate students. While taxon experts are obviously the ideal choice to compile
checklists for their speciality, anyone with a solid knowledge of taxonomic andnomenclatural principles, and access to relevant literature sources, can compile
checklists. Developing a national checklist that covers all taxa will probably requirethat non-specialists contribute to at least parts of the list.

October 20129

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

3. Developing a checklist
In some countries, national checklists have a long history and have been expanded,
improved and updated many times. The plant checklist of South Africa provides a good
example of this situation.

3.1. History of South Africa’s plant checklist: an ideal situation
One of the first efforts to catalogue the higher order plant taxa of South Africa was the'Genera of South African Plants' (Harvey 1868) in which 1186 genera were listed. Thiswas followed by the 'Genera of South African Flowering Plants' (Phillips 1926), in which
1645 genera were listed. The first single comprehensive list of the southern African
flora including all known species was published in 1993, in which 2604 genera were
published (Arnold & De Wet 1993), and this volume became known as the Black Book.
It has since been replaced by, 'A Checklist of South African Plants' (Germishuizen et al.
2006).
The national plant checklist is available on the SANBI website12, and is updated
regularly. The mechanism used to update the list is the National Herbarium, Pretoria(PRE) Computerised Information System (PRECIS), a database that documents theprimary collection data of all plant specimens housed in the three SANBI herbaria. The
database has two main components, one of which houses the locality data from
specimens collected. The second main component is taxonomic and comprises theelectronic catalogue of taxon names, along with their authors, synonyms, references,and to which family they belong, for indigenous and naturalized taxa of the Flora of
the Southern African region. From the latter, a checklist can be derived at any time,that will reflect the current accepted names and classifications of plants in South
Africa. The website resource is derived from the taxonomic component of the PRECIS
database. This illustrates a case where a comprehensive list has existed for over 100
years, and an electronic version can be compiled quickly using a database as a soundbasis for the checklist, which only needs to be updated when changes are published.
The South African Plant Checklist is the exception rather than the general situation,and in most cases, lists have to be compiled from scratch, or from numerous lists forlower taxa, or from a completely outdated list.

12

Plants of Southern Africa: http://posa.sanbi.org/searchspp.php

October 201210

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

3.2. Compiling a checklist
3.2.1. Using taxon experts to compile the checklist
Taxonomists invariably develop competence in one or more families or groups. After aperiod of exposure to the constituent taxa, they are familiar with all the literature
dealing with the taxonomy of the group, and they become experienced at recallingnames of organisms and recognizing when an organism is new to science. Institutions
that take on the responsibility for compiling checklists and inventories usually makethese taxon-based experts responsible for creating, improving and maintaining names(accepted and synonyms) of groups they know and feel comfortable with.
A national checklist for a major taxonomic grouping (e.g. vascular plants, or all
animals) can be compiled by getting specialist taxonomists to compile the list for one
or more families or orders, and then combining these lists. It is most likely that there
will be taxonomic gaps remaining, and these can be filled by non-specialist
taxonomists, using a range of approaches and resources as detailed in the following
sections.
There are two considerations when getting taxonomists to compile components of amajor national checklist. Firstly, the format and content will need to be specified(section 3), and the conventions and philosophy for what will be included and whichclassification system will be used need to be standardized across taxa as far as
possible. Secondly, grants to taxonomists may be required, so this should not be
considered as a cost-free approach.

3.2.2. Compiling the list in the absence of experts
While taxonomists will use some of the resources and approaches outlined below incompiling a checklist, they are likely to have a sound understanding of existing
literature, websites, and collection databases and their potential value for compiling achecklist, and they would probably have a complete set of relevant references and acomprehensive specimen database for the taxon. Non-experts, on the other hand,
would need to locate and assess various sources of information.

3.2.3. Extracting a checklist from a specimen database
Natural history collections that have been databased include the names and usuallysome degree of classification information that has been captured for each specimen. A
simple approach may be to extract the taxonomic list from such a database, at least as
the basis for the full and updated list. This is especially true where the database iscomprehensive, for example where it represents a major collection for a particular
October 201211

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

taxon. Gaps will exist in the taxon list, where material of any number of species may
not be represented in the collection. In addition, the taxonomic and nomenclatural
data may be outdated, unless the collection and databases have been regularly
checked and updated. In addition, the identity of specimens may not have beenverified, so species may be erroneously included or excluded. Finally, most collections
include material that is not from the country in which the collection is housed. Thisshould be the simplest challenge to address, because non-focus country material canbe excluded before the taxon list is extracted. The advantage of extracting thetaxonomic list from a specimen database is that each name is associated with actual
specimens, which means that the identity of the specimen can be verified if taxonomic
expertise is available.

3.2.4. A major work exists, but this is broader than the country, is outdated, andis only available in print.
An example of this is the Catalogue of the Afrotropical Diptera (Crosskey 1980), which
formed a sound basis for compiling a checklist of the Diptera of South Africa, but aconsiderable effort was still required. The text for each species (more than 16,000)
included in the catalogue had to be examined to identify those species which wererecorded from South Africa and these were then captured, with their associatedinformation. All subsequent published literature which covers or includes South African
taxa had to be identified and reviewed to add new species and to update any changes
to the classification and nomenclature. The electronic version of Zoological Record(Thomson Scientific Inc.)13 was used for this updating activity.

3.2.5. Global checklists exist for a particular taxon or habitat
The Catalogue of Life (CoL) may be a useful starting point for compiling a national
checklist either in its entirety or for a particular taxon, but it must be recognized that
the CoL list is far from complete.
There are many global efforts to compile checklists for particular taxa (e.g. various
insect and plant families, fish), and for marine organisms. In several cases thesechecklists or databases are available on the web and are searchable by country,
producing a list of species which can be downloaded. This can be an excellent starting
point for these taxa. The content partners listed in the Encyclopedia of Life14, in the13
14

Zoological Record: http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/
Encyclopedia of Life: http://eol.org/

October 201212

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

checklist section of the GBIF Checklist Bank15 website, the projects in the Taxonomic
Databases Working Group (TDWG) 16 site and the Catalogue of Life information
databases17 provide useful links to these websites. An attempt should be made to
determine the completeness of the list, how and when last it was updated and whocompiled it.
When resources such as these are used to extract data, copyright restrictions andrequirements must be considered.

3.2.6. No checklists have been compiled for a particular taxon.
Where no checklist exists for a particular taxon, the national list will need to becompiled from published taxonomic papers, electronic resources or a combination of
the two.
One approach is to scan relevant literature to identify the most recent publication on
the group, and to use the reference list from that publication to identify further
relevant works. Citation and abstract databases such as the Thomson Reuters (ISI) Web
of Knowledge18, Scopus19 and Zoological Record20 are very useful for searching forrelevant literature. Museum or herbarium libraries may need to be visited to access
literature, but those with a focus on the specific taxon should be prioritized.
The Biodiversity Heritage Library21 is a rapidly-growing resource that provides open
access to the ‘legacy literature’ from major natural history libraries through scans of
documents. It provides a search function by any taxonomic level or species name, orby country. JSTOR22 is a similar resource and is also open access, but it covers a suiteof journal titles, rather than focussing on legacy literature. Mendeley23 is anotherliterature database which can be searched by taxon and which provides open access tomany more recent publications.
Taxonomy is not only perfectly suited to the electronic dissemination ofnomenclatural, descriptive and illustrative material, but Smith & Figueiredo (2010)conclusively showed that it is equally possible to construct, virtually de novo, a nearperfect plant inventory for a country (or region of any size for that matter) using

15

GBIF Checklist Bank: http://www.gbif.org/informatics/name-services/checklist-bank/
TDWG: Projects Database: http://www.tdwg.org/biodiv-projects/projects-database/
17
Catalogue of Life - 15th March 2012: Source databases: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/info/databases
18
Web of Knowledge: http://wokinfo.com/
19
Scopus: http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus
20
Zoological Record: http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/
21
Biodiversity Heritage Library: http://www://biodiversitylibrary.org/
22
JStor: http://www/jstor.org/
23
Mendeley: http://www.mendeley.com/
16

October 201213

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

resources currently available on the world wide web. With resources such as GBIF24,
JSTOR Plant Science25, TROPICOS26, the International Plant Names Index27 (IPNI), andseveral others (see Table 4 in Smith & Figueiredo 2010), 11,316 plant names werecompiled for 7,296 plant taxa accepted for Angola, a south-tropical African country(Figueiredo & Smith 2008). The research required was conducted at a cost of only 1.4
Euros per name added to the checklist, which additionally makes this a comparatively
affordable way of compiling a checklist.

3.3 Which classification system to use?
The classification system provides the overall hierarchical framework for a checklist.
The classification of biological organisms should reflect the evolutionary relationships
between taxa and so classifications should be considered as hypotheses thatchange on an ongoing basis, mostly as a result of the application of new technologies
to explore DNA and to analyse molecular data. There are often several different higher
classification systems in use at any one time. None of these is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’,and it should be accepted that individual taxonomists will favour one system overanother which will result in contention over which is the better system to use at anational level.
In many cases institutions or taxonomists select some components of an establishedclassification system, but not others which they replace with systems from moretaxon-specific publications. This approach can create problems when comparisons ofrichness or diversity need to be made with other countries for a particular taxon, andit will be problematic for data to be contributed to or extracted from one of the larger
species databases.
For national checklists it is therefore recommended that a generally acceptedclassification system be used, rather than one composed of components ofsystems, or derived from a range of fragmented publications. The system for anational checklist can be decided on through a workshop or discussion involving therelevant taxonomists. A useful approach is to consider positive and negative aspects ofdifferent classification systems in terms of stability, extent of use by major collection
institutions or global programmes, and the implications in terms of organizing thenational flora or fauna. If necessary a national poll of taxonomists can be carried out

24

GBIF: http://www.gbif.org/
jstor plant science: http://about.jstor.org/content-collections/primary-sources/jstor-plant-science26
Tropicos: http://www.tropicos.org/
27
IPNI: http://www.ipni.org/
25

October 201214

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

to select a classification system. For a national checklist, probably the most importantcriterion is stability, i.e. it is unlikely to change with every new analysis, or to becompletely rearranged on a regular basis. One of the classification systems used by
the larger global programmes such as the Encyclopedia of Life28 and Catalogue ofLife29 are recommended for national checklists.
The classification system used can be reviewed when new systems become
established, but the implications in terms of feasibility and resources required for
migrating from one system to another should be considered. Review should be within a
set time, preferably not more frequently than every five years to avoid continualchange, which could result in loss of credibility among users of the checklist, andadditional costs related to capacity to make the changes. Reviews do have to be done,
however, since the classification system used must be valid.
If resources permit, web-based checklists can be presented using the classification
system promoted as the ‘national standard’, and species lists can also be presented inalternative classification systems for the use of specialists. This is done in the
Encyclopedia of Life and several other smaller checklists. The maintenance of multiple
classification systems should, however, be seen as a useful add-on rather than as acore component especially for many of the biodiversity-rich countries with limited
capacity.
A problem which will be encountered is allocating taxa included in one classification
system to another one which may not include such taxa. It may be simplistic to include
such taxa in the checklist with a note explaining the source and the reason why they
have not been allocated to a particular higher taxon in the classification system used.
The only real way to resolve such problems is through taxonomic study, but this isbeyond the scope of the normal checklist compilation process.

3.4. A stepwise approach to compiling a national checklist
There is no ‘recipe’ for compiling a checklist and the details of how a checklist should
be or can be compiled will depend on the resources available, which are usuallyrelated to the taxon being dealt with and the country for which the list is being
compiled. We suggest some steps that may be a useful guide.

28
29

Encyclopedia of Life: http://eol.org/
Catalogue of Life: http://www.catalogueoflife.org

October 201215

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Determine whether there is an existing checklist for a particular taxon (family, order,
class or other higher level). Interrogating citation and abstract databases, Google
Scholar, or even Wikipedia is a useful way to start this search.
If a checklist does exist, access this through the website, a library or the Biodiversity
Heritage Library30.
Determine what format an existing checklist is in, and whether it could be used to
extract the relevant data without having to recapture it.
Remsen et al. (2012)31 described a pilot project in which an electronic checklist was
extracted from a Word document, and data were reformatted into an electronic
database for integration into GBIF, and into an Excel spreadsheet that was included as
an appendix with the electronically published paper. In the case where a checklist
exists as a Word document, or in a specimen database, the procedure described can beused to avoid recapturing the data.
There are various tools that can assist with finding and extracting names in PDF orother electronic documents 32. These can be useful and save time, but the decision
about how the name fits into the checklist still needs to be made by the checklist
compiler.
If no published checklist exists, determine whether there is a comprehensive specimen
database which covers the country or region for the focus taxon. The national GBIF
node, or if this does not exist, the global GBIF website, is the most logical source of
this information. Collection facilities such as herbaria and museums may also be
useful. Records from the focus country can be filtered, and the taxonomic componentof the database extracted. The GBIF data portal33 provides such a download option. In
many cases the identification of the specimens will not have been checked by anexpert, and the specimens may be misidentified, or the name may have changed, so
lists based on specimen databases should be treated with some caution.
Lists from neighbouring countries or broader regions that have checklists can also be
useful because the species information may mention the occurrence of species in othercountries. From this point, the literature will need to be used to identify gaps and30

Biodiversity Heritage Library: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/
Remsen, D., Knapp, S., Georgiev, T., Stoev, P. & Penev, L. (2012) From text to structured data: Convertinga word-processed floristic checklist into Darwin Core Archive format – Pensoft. Accessible at
http://www.pensoft.net/journals/phytokeys/article/2770/
32
Taxon name processing tools: http://code.google.com/p/taxon-name-processing/wiki/nameRecognition
31

October 201216

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

check the validity and status of the names and higher classification used. Citation andabstract databases are the most efficient way of finding relevant publications.
Use the checklist or extracted taxon database as the basis, and then use various
literature databases or search engines to find later publications on the taxon that may
have added species, or changed the taxonomy of existing taxa. It is advisable to get
the full reference for checking the taxonomic information.
If there is no existing checklist, all publications dealing with the particular taxon, andthat include or focus on the particular country, will need to be sourced and accessedso that relevant species and classifications can be extracted and compiled into thenational checklist.
Establish the classification framework for the checklist. An available source is theCatalogue of Life Annual Checklist34.
Start with the most recent publication, capturing the genera and species and relevant
associated information for each taxon covered. Details of what information to capture
for each species is covered in section 3, and guidance for the format in which it iscaptured is provided by GBIF (2010a).
Verify the nomenclatural status of each name included in the list using a nomenclator(Index Fungorum35 and International Plant Names Index36 or ZooBank37). If the namedoes not appear in the electronic nomenclator, as is the case for most animals, it willneed to be tracked through the literature.
Source additional information about each accepted or valid name, especially synonyms
and references. The African Flowering Plants Database38 is an example of a resourcethat provides this kind of information, but there are many others on the web. In theabsence of an appropriate web-based resource, relevant literature will have to bereviewed.
Ideally a taxonomist with specialist knowledge of the relevant higher taxon should
review the list before it is disseminated. Obviously if the list has been compiled by aspecialist, this step is not necessary.
For plants and fungi, a different sequence of activities may be more efficient becauseof the comprehensive nomenclators that exist for these groups. A species checklist can

34

Catalogue of Life: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/
Index Fungorum: http://www.indexfungorum.org/names
36
IPNI: http://www.ipni.org
37
ZooBank: http://zoobank.org/
38
African Flowering Plants Database: http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/africa/index.php
35

October 201217

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

be extracted from a specimen database or GBIF for a country, and each name in thelist checked against the relevant nomenclator to identify status, synonyms andreferences for each name.

3.5 Costs associated with compiling the lists
National checklists can be compiled without great expense. The main costs will be toprovide incentive grants to specialist taxonomists, subscriptions to citation andabstract databases, to access publications through journals which might require
purchasing PDFs, and, possibly the main expense, salaries for checklist compilers
where they are contracted specifically to compile the lists and/or for integratingsmaller checklists into larger, more comprehensive ones and for formatting checklists
submitted by different contributors. Smith & Figueiredo (2010) calculated that it took
one person one year to compile a country plant list that included 11,316 plant namesfor 7,296 plant taxa, and the major cost was the salary for this person.
Many scientific institutions have access to literature and citation/abstract databases,
so this may not be an expense, and some resources such as the Biodiversity Heritage
Library and components of JSTOR are open access. Wikispecies and Google are also
freely accessible and often provide useful leads to relevant information or resources.
There may be a cost for software development, but with the number of open source
options, and the relative simplicity of the checklist structure, this should not benecessary.

October 201218

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

4. Scope of the checklists
Checklists can be simple lists of scientific names organized within a classification
system, but for national checklists this format would be of little use. Increasing theinformation on each species can add considerably to the value of the list and thusincrease its audience and use. The amount of information provided has to bebalanced with the effort and the time required to compile the list. Initiatives such as
GBIF and the Encyclopedia of Life are compiling detailed information about species,and checklist compilers and designers should aim to link to these resources, rather
than duplicate their efforts.
There are options for the categories of species the checklist covers, and how rigorous
the requirements for validation of species’ presence in the country will be.

4.1 Policy on which species to include in the checklist
Explicit policy on which species to include in the national checklist needs to be
developed, stated with the checklist, and adhered to in a standardized way acrosstaxa. Some of the decisions covered by the policy should include:
Whether only indigenous or also introduced and naturalized or alien invasive species
are included;
Whether only those species currently present in the country or those recorded
historically, but which are now extinct, are included;
Whether fossils will be included and if so, for which historical or geological period;
Whether species for which there is only weak evidence for occurrence in a country will
be included, and what evidence will be required for making a decision about presence
in a country. For example, will unverified observational data be accepted, or only
species for which vouchered specimens have been verified by a taxonomic expert? And
What to do about species for which there is uncertainty about locality. For example,
many old specimens in collections have broad locality data which may or may notallow definite placement of the species in a country, and in other cases locality names
and country borders have changed and it is uncertain exactly where the specimen wascollected.

4.2 Critical data to include in the list
GBIF (2010a,b) has produced two guides that include information about the type ofdata needed for checklists. One of these is a reference guide for the ‘Global Names
October 201219

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Architecture (GNA) Profile for Darwin Core Archives39’. The Darwin Core is a set ofstandards for data, and is the recommended standard for submitting data to the GBIF
network. The GNA is an effort to develop standardized methods, practices and sharedresources specifically for the taxonomic component of biodiversity data. The reference
guide presents the core terms and descriptions for the information that should be
included in a species checklist, as well as some additional fields that could be used in
an annotated checklist. The list of data required is long and complex, comprising 41
fields for basic information alone, and it is unlikely that all fields will be included in anational checklist, but it is worth reviewing the GNA structure. The second document(GBIF, 2010a) on best practices for publishing checklists40 provides useful guidelines forthe structure and formatting of the data.
The main data, which should be the first priority for inclusion in a national checklist,
are as follows:
Classification levels (taxonomic ranks): There are various ranks which differ slightly
between the different Kingdoms, and even between groups within Kingdoms. There
are, however, seven classification levels which must be included in a checklist:
Kingdom, Phylum or Division, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. Subspecies andvarieties may also be included. The more taxonomic ranks that are included in theclassification (e.g. sub-Kingdoms, Subphylum, Subclass, Infraclass, Cohort, Suborder,
Infraorder, Tribe, Subfamily, etc.), the more effort will be required to compile andmaintain the list, and there will be more conflicting systems for which decisions need
to be made. For national checklists it is therefore advisable to include the majortaxonomic ranks or levels, at least as the standard minimum, and only to include
additional levels where there is a strong reason.
Scientific species name and author: An ‘authority’ must accompany a scientificname. The authority is the name of the scientist who first published the name. For
example, the scientific name Apis mellifera is written as ‘Apis mellifera Linnaeus,
1758’ because Linnaeus described and named this species in 1758. The names ofauthors are frequently abbreviated in botany and mycology and there is a regulated
list of standard abbreviations for authors which is accessible through IPNI41.
Abbreviations are not used for authorities of zoological names. There are other

39

GBIF GNA Profile Reference Guide for Darwin Core Archives, version 1.0, released on 1 April 2011,(contributed by Remsen D.P., Döring, M, Robertson, T.), Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information
Facility, 28 pp. Accessible at http://links.gbif.org/gbif_gna_profile_reference_guide40Best practices in publishing species checklists. Contributed by Remsen, D., Döring, M., & Robertson, T.
Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, 20pp. Accessible at
http://links.gbif.org/checklist_best_practices
41
IPNI author abbreviations: http://www.ipni.org/ipni/authorsearchpage.do
October 201220

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

differences in citing authorities for plants and animals: it is standard that if a species'name or placement has changed since the original description, the original authority's
name is placed in parentheses. In botany, in cases where a species is no longer placedin the genus in which it was originally described (i.e. a new combination of genus andspecies has been published), both the author(s) of the original genus placement andthose of the new combination are given, with the former in parentheses. In zoology
the publication year is given following author name(s), while this is often not done inbotany, and the authorship of a new combination is not given for animals (see WelterSchultes (2012)42 for details of conventions for citing zoological names).
Synonyms: These are names which have been previously used for a taxon but which
are no longer considered to be the accepted or valid name for the species. Incorrectspellings of the name can also be considered to be synonyms. For each species nameconsidered accepted or valid, all synonyms, with the reference in which the synonymy
was identified should be included. The type of synonym can also be included (e.g.
homotypic synonym, see section 2.1.3 above). Where one name has many associatedsynonyms this can create structural challenges which will need to be considered, but it
is important to include all synonyms so that the fate of any name that has been used
can be tracked in the checklist.
Unique identifier for each species: As the electronic management and disseminationof species information has increased, the pressure to provide a unique number or code
for all biological names has increased. There are various types of unique identifiers
and no single widely-accepted or complete system. Life Science Identifiers (LSID) areused by the large nomenclatural databases, and if a particular species or higher taxon
name already exists in the database, then the number should be available, and be
included in the checklist. The Index Fungorum43 and International Plant Names Index44
provide the LSIDs for many names, and the Catalogue of Life45 is probably the mostuseful for accessing the LSIDs for higher animal taxa. There is no single, coordinatedsource of LSIDs for animal species. ZooBank46 provides LSIDs for names but currently
has limited coverage. Where LSIDs do not yet exist, an effort should be made to42

Welter-Schultes, F.W. (2012). Guidelines for the capture and management of digital
zoological names information, version 1.0, released on June 2012, Copenhagen: Global
Biodiversity Information Facility, 126 pp, ISBN: 87-92020-44-5. Accessible at
http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=2784.
43

Index Fungorum: http://www.indexfungorum.org/names
IPNI: http://www.ipni.org/
45
Catalogue of Life: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/
46
ZooBank: http://www.zoobank.org/
44

October 201221

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

register them through nomenclature sites and include them in the checklist. The
source of the unique identifier should be stated in the checklist.
Source of the checklist information: For each species on the checklist, a reference
should indicate the basis on which it is included. If most of the species belonging to
one family are in the list because they were extracted from a world catalogue for theparticular family, then that catalogue would be the reference for the source of thosespecies. The source of the species record may be a specimen database or a publishedjournal article, where these are used for identifying species for inclusion in the list.
The source reference may be the same as the original description reference used in
the compilation of the checklist, but in many cases the source reference will bedifferent from the original description. In some cases the bulk of or even the entire
checklist will have been compiled from a single reference (e.g. a published checklist
or a monograph), but this may change for individual species as updates are made using
new publications. It is therefore inadequate only to include the reference source inthe metadata profile for the list. While it may seem enormously time-consuming toinclude a source reference for each species, this is essential for the rigour andcredibility of the list.
Author/compiler/editor: The individual responsible for adding the species or othername or changing status in the checklist should be documented. This information may
be included in the metadata document (see below), but it is also important at a finerlevel such as for each species. Where checklists include a major or broad taxonomic
grouping, there are likely to be many authors who have contributed to the list, which
may be difficult to detail in the metadata. Over time, numerous contributors mayneed to be given credit for updates or additions.
Stating the author not only allows credit to be given to those who have contributed to
the list, but also provides some indication of the credibility of the entry. Naming theindividual responsible for the record also promotes accountability for its accuracy.
Date of capture/amendment: This allows users of the information to determine andtrack the number of new species added and changes made in a given time period, andto identify easily the set of most recent changes by searching the checklist by date. It
also allows machine-mediated synchronization of data held in different systems.

4.3 Additional/optional data for inclusion
The critical or core components of a checklist are the classification and names oforganisms, with the formality of the authority for the name, and the source of thespecies record. There are several other fields or types of information (extensions from
October 201222

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

the core) that may not be considered to be critical in a checklist, but which doincrease its value if included.
Common or vernacular names: These are useful especially for the non-scientificcommunity and for communicating species information to a wider audience. For sometaxa the common name is well-established, but in invertebrates many species lackcommon names, and for some taxa, including plants, there are many common names
for one species, and many species with the same common name. The checklist canserve as a coordinating and standardizing mechanism for common names. When new
species are described, formalizing the common name soon after the description of thespecies and making this available could limit the future proliferation of common names
for a single species.For some taxa, especially plants, birds and mammals, species may
have well- known names that are not English, and others have common names in avariety of different languages. In South Africa many medicinally important plants thatare used for traditional healing have non-English names. The situation in other multicultural countries may be similar, and it will be necessary to consider includingcommon names in the main languages of the country. The number of languages toinclude in a national list needs to be dealt with sensitively and sensibly, withfeasibility being a major consideration. Consultation with relevant stakeholders todecide which languages to include and which sources of common names to use may benecessary.
References: Citation of the publication in which the species is described is very useful,and can at a later stage be linked to the actual publication through the Biodiversity
Heritage Library or some other literature database. Including all taxonomic references
for each species would provide a valuable additional resource, but will increase thetime required for compiling and updating the list, and is probably more suited to thespecies pages in the Encyclopedia of Life than a checklist. The format used for thereference will need to be standardized in the checklist, but the usual authors, date,title, journal, volume and page numbers should at least be included.
Type information: The type locality and repository (museum or herbarium where thetype is housed) for the holotype specimen are very useful additional pieces of
information to include in a checklist. The catalogue or accession number of the typespecimen, if available, is also ideal because it links the name to an actual voucheredspecimen on which the name is based. If time is being spent, the references consulted
while compiling a checklist often include information on type specimens, and it istherefore more efficient to capture such information at this initial stage.
Where type information is not available, or the type locality is outside the focus
country for the checklist, then it may be useful to link the species name in the list to
October 201223

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

at least one specimen in a local collection and from a locality within the country,
whose identity has been verified by an expert. This may not always be possible, but it
does improve the credibility of the list.
Distribution and Endemism: In deciding the scope of a national checklist, if all
species present in a country are to be included it will be necessary to identify whether
species are indigenous or introduced/exotic. This would be the simplest level of
distribution information. Identifying which species are confined to the focus country(country endemics) is also important and can be done by having a field specificallystating endemic/non-endemic, or by including the countries in which a species occurs.
For species that occur widely, it may be necessary to use broader categories, such as
Africa, Global or Cosmopolitan. An additional level of distribution data could be toinclude the state(s)/province(s) in which the species has been recorded, so that atleast checklists or inventories of species for major areas could be extracted. This isespecially important in a country such as South Africa, where conservation is at a
provincial level. Including more distribution information than this greatly increases theeffort required for compiling the checklist. Ideally, at some stage in the future it will
be possible to link species in the list directly to occurrence data in GBIF network.
Threat status: Including threat status as listed in the IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species47 and CITES48 or according to the country’s own threatened species lists isuseful in that all information about all species would be coordinated through a single
list, rather than having a separate list for threatened species that would need to be
maintained in terms of taxonomic changes. Threat status will need to be updated
when new assessments are carried out, and when revisions change the status of taxa or
names.
Taxonomic note or comment: It is important for checklist compilers and contributors
to be able to flag potentially problematic taxa in the list, to be able to highlight where
there is debate or dilemma that require further research for resolution, or to makeany other comment of relevance to the name and its taxonomy.

4.4. Taxon or country-specific options for inclusion in the checklist
There are bound to be additional data fields identified as being important, because ofeither country or taxon needs. For example, in plants, life form descriptors(herbaceous, shrub, tree, etc.) may be important, while in animals a broad habitat
category (marine, freshwater, terrestrial, or free-living/parasitic) may be important.
47
48

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: http://www://iucnredlist.org/
CITES species index: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/.../checklist11/CITES_species_index.pdf

October 201224

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Economic importance may be categorized and included (e.g. medicinal use, crop pest,
livestock disease vector), but in any such case it is suggested that a standard set ofterms be developed and adhered to so that searching for and extracting databases ofsubsets of the entire checklist (e.g. all crop pests) can be done quickly and effectively.

4.5. Metadata for the checklist
The GBIF (2010a) document suggests that a metadata profile should be developed foreach checklist dataset and that this should include the individuals and organizations
that may be associated with a dataset, the links to the homepage of the source,whether the checklist is linked to a particular project, and the citation (exactly how
the checklist data should be cited when used). The list of references used to compile
the checklist can also be included in the metadata document. There can be two levelsof metadata profile for large, integrated checklists covering multiple higher taxa —one for the overall checklist and a finer detail for checklists of specific taxa which
contribute to the major list.

October 201225

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

5. Maintaining the checklist
Checklists are generally dynamic, and in order to ensure that they provide the most
up-to-date information, they will need to be regularly maintained. Documented andnationally- implemented policy and procedures for the maintenance of national
checklists are critical to ensure that all contributors and users understand therationale for the inclusion of data and for changes and additions made, and also toensure that there is some degree of standardization across taxa and compilers in terms
of approach to updating. The procedures ensure transparency about how changes are
made and who is responsible.

5.1 Reasons for changes in the checklist (types of changes)
Checklists will need to be updated in response to various research developments
including:
The description of a new species, genus or higher taxon which needs to be added tothe checklist. If the checklist includes infraspecific taxa, these may also need to be
added;
When the status of a name changes, for example if it is synonymised;
When the spelling of a name is corrected;
When the name is changed because of other nomenclatural requirements;
The genus to which a species was assigned changes (i.e. new combinations);
The higher classification changes;
Additional species are recorded from a country, either through new arrivals or new
data revealing the presence of a species not previously recorded, or new data revealthat a species included is not actually in the country; orOther additional information of relevance to the checklist fields becomes available tofill an existing gap.

5.2 Approaches to updating the checklist and capacity required for different
scenarios
Providing a national checklist which reflects the latest understanding of species,names and classifications is best achieved if the checklist(s) are coordinated throughone organization or institution which applies a single policy and procedure in thecompilation and updating of the checklist(s). If many individuals and institutions are
October 201226

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

all responsible for maintaining components (either lower taxonomic levels, or smaller
geographic regions) of a national checklist, then it is critical that a common policy andapproach are accepted, understood and uniformly applied by all contributors.
A policy for national checklist maintenance is necessary to ensure broad understanding
and acceptance of changes made to the checklist, and an understanding of thefrequency with which the list is updated.
The policy decisions made by SANBI taxonomists for the South African National
Plant Checklist include:
The checklist will be updated on an ongoing basis, with changes identified in theliterature being incorporated into the checklist within three weeks of receipt of
the publication. Only published changes will be incorporated, but where apublication leaves unresolved issues this may be stated in a notes column or field. For
example, where a study has investigated the DNA of one of nine species in a genus,
and the results indicate that this species should be placed in a different genus, only
the results for this species can be reflected in the checklist. A note may be added tothe other eight species indicating that they may also belong to the other genus, butthat this requires investigation. The assumption cannot be made that, because the
DNA of one species indicated a new combination, the same will be true for the otherspecies.
All newly published names will be added to the list, whether resident scientists agreewith the concepts or not.
All published changes will be incorporated into the checklist, but those published in
non-peer-reviewed journals or informal sources will be indicated as such by having afield specifically for this kind of information.
Experts within SANBI or from other institutions can submit an application not to
implement a change to the checklist if it will have a major impact on nomenclatureand classification and it is likely to be repudiated within a short period of time byother published research. This application has to be submitted to an internal researchcommittee before acceptance, and this type of appeal will likely be an exception
rather than a regular occurrence. An example of this would be where the author of amolecular study splits a very large genus (eg. more than 200 species), but thephylogeny is considered by another taxon expert to be weakly supported. In such acase a time frame for not capturing the change will be set (two to three years), and if
no other studies are published on the genus to refute the findings then it will be
adopted in the species checklist.

October 201227

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

The status of names will be indicated based on the Plant List49 information and notunpublished opinion. Experts will not be consulted on inclusion of the publishedtaxonomy because this may lead to conflict among specialists. In cases where thename or taxonomy needs to be treated with caution this can be indicated in thecomments field.
One higher-level classification system will be used in the checklist and adhered to in
its entirety. (For vascular plants the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group [APG] II system wasselected). The classification system and the policy will be reviewed every three to five
years and may be amended then.
It should be noted that this policy may not be ideal for all countries or taxa, anddifferent approaches may be adopted. The South African example helps to illustrate
the type of decisions that should be included in an explicit policy document fornational checklists, rather than prescribing what the decisions should be.
The SANBI procedures for maintaining the South African National Plant Checklist
may also be useful as a guide for other taxa and for other countries, but details mayneed to be modified.
The decision was made to appoint a single staff member, with a sound knowledge andunderstanding of plant nomenclature and literature, to take full responsibility for
maintaining the checklist. This ’checklist co-ordinator’ will:
Scan the published literature that SANBI subscribes to for identification of relevantpublications;
Establish and communicate regularly with a network of researchers who publish
taxonomic papers on South African plants to request copies of newly-published work
not in the list of journals to which SANBI subscribes. The editors of some of the more
obscure journals will be contacted and a similar request made;Use an accessible literature database to search at least biannually for new species andother relevant publications;
The global Plant List50 will be scanned on a six-monthly basis to identify any
publications that might have been missed, and to check the status of names; and49, 33

The Plant List: http://www.theplantlist.org/

October 201228

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

The following will be recorded for each change, as appropriate: new species or species
whose status has changed; synonyms; reference; date that the change was made; acomment, where required, explaining the change.
Dissemination:
The updated electronic checklist will be disseminated through SANBI’s website, with afunction that allows a search by date so that the latest changes can be identified byusers.
A feedback function that allows input on errors is also required on the checklist. The
checklist coordinator will be responsible for responding to comments.
The system formerly in place for maintaining the checklist involved different
taxonomists being allocated responsibility for several plant families for which they had
to identify publications that included changes. They then assessed the paper, andmade a decision on whether to accept the taxonomic change of new
species/genus/classification. If they accepted the change, it was then recommended
to a staff member who captured the change in the checklist, printed out the change
and referred it back to the expert for checking. Once approved by the expert, thechange was finalized in the database. This type of system creates four problems:Published names or taxa are not captured in the checklist if they are not agreed upon,
and this may cause confusion for users of the checklist attempting to check the statusof the name or taxon;
It allows subjective decisions to be made about changes, without any standardization.
Personal preferences often cloud judgements and loss of credibility of the checklist
results;
Different families are updated at different frequencies and at different times becausesome staff may be away or consider this responsibility a low priority; andThis is not a cost effective approach to maintaining the checklist since the time, andthus salaries (estimated 10%) of all 20 staff members, most of who are senior scientists
have to be considered, as opposed to a system where the salary (probably 60%) of asingle, mid-level staff member is required to implement an explicit procedure andpolicy.
In the case of animals, the maintenance of a national checklist covering all taxa may
be considered as being too broad a task for a single staff member, and in this caseindividual experts could take responsibility for identifying changes. The experts caneither update the list online, or send changes through to a checklist coordinator. The
latter is probably preferable because of different levels of database and web expertise
October 201229

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

amongst participants, different interpretations of the fields/information required, andvarying frequencies at which the changes are made. If individual experts maintain the
checklist, it is advisable to hold a workshop to ensure that all contributors agree on
the policy and procedures, and are competent in the technologies that are used forsubmitting the changes. It is also advisable to have a checklist coordinator, even if ona part-time basis to ensure that the format is standardized, to send regular reminders
to contributors, to deal with technological problems and to maintain those componentsof the checklist for which there are no experts. Without a coordinator, the checklist
maintenance process is likely to collapse or lose credibility because it is inconsistently
maintained.

October 201230

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

6. Format Options
There are two aspects relating to the format of the checklist, i.e. the format in which
the information is captured and managed and the format in which it is made accessible
and disseminated. The advantages of an online electronic national checklist over a
hard copy publication have been discussed already, and only the electronic format is
considered here. The GBIF (2010a) document provides details for the format in whichdata should be captured, and also provides some guidelines for how a checklist should
be structured. The recommendations given here relate more to some key principles forthe format of the checklist, rather than detailed instructions.

6.1 Options for capturing the checklist and considerations in selecting format
There is no standard database design available for checklists. Several
collection/specimen databases do have a taxonomy component. The BotanicalResearch and Herbarium Management System (BRAHMS) and the SPECIFY databases
structures have taxonomic sections which allow the compilation and extraction ofchecklists, but BRAHMS is not open source and both softwares require relatively
intense training to become proficient in their use.
The Integrated Taxonomic Information Systems website 51 (ITIS) does provide a
downloadable workbench which was created using Visual Basic and Microsoft Access.
Information is quite easily entered, copied, and manipulated using standard Windows
commands and menus.
The Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Subgroup on Biological Collection Datasite lists collection management database software52 that includes taxonomic ornomenclatural components. Several of the databases are open source, and arepotentially useful for compiling and managing checklists.
Databases can be designed specifically for compiling and managing taxonomic
information relevant to checklists. These types of structures and formats are
acceptable if the checklists are compiled and managed by one person who is familiar
with the operations of the database, and who has the software on a desktop, but if the
expectation is that taxonomists scattered at various institutions will manage thechecklists, then this is a risky approach since it is unlikely that all taxonomists will be

51

Integrated Taxonomic Information Systems: http://www.itis.gov/twb.html
Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Subgroup on Biological Collection Data:
http://www.bgbm.org/tdwg/acc/Software.htm
52

October 201231

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

familiar with specialized software, and they may not have it set up on a desktop.
Problems may also occur if the developer is not available to assist when there areproblems with the database, or to deal with requests for additional functions.
There is a wide range of software that can be used to produce a simple checklist
database or spreadsheet and individuals are likely to have personal preferences.
Microsoft Access and Excel can both be used for checklists with the advantage thatmany people have access to them and are able to use them to capture and manipulate
taxonomic information. However, there are costs associated with the initial purchaseand upgrading of Microsoft, and for checklist compilers wanting open source software,
SQLite databases can be created and managed with a Web browser add-on. The key
considerations are that the data must be readily transferable to other software
structures and platforms and whatever is used must be simple to design andmanipulate even by those users with limited IT knowledge or experience.

6.2 Options for providing online access to the checklist and considerations inselecting format
There are many different database structures and web interfaces that are suitable fordisseminating checklists. Some key requirements from a user perspective are discussed
below:
Searching by name alone limits the use of the checklist. It is important that the list
can be searched by any taxonomic level, and that a search is able to draw up alist of species and not only information on a single name. For example a search by
family should provide the option for listing all species within a family, rather than only
providing information about the family. The checklist should also be searchable bytype repository, distribution (country and state/province), and importantly, by
date of last update/change. Having a number of different search criteria increases
the usefulness of the checklist.
Checklist users will often want to download portions or even the entire checklist
and allowing this option also increases the value of the list. A simple comma-separated
values (CSV)/spreadsheet is usually acceptable to most users because this format
allows manipulation and searching of the data. The GBIF (2010a) document provides aninternationally-accepted standard for sharing checklists in a CSV format. A PDF format
on the other hand does not offer these options, but it does have the advantage of notenabling changes to the list which might be preferable if standardization of thenational list is an objective.

October 201232

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

7. Copyright and data ownership issues for national checklists
National species checklists should be considered as a national and even as a global
resource. Ideally users should be able to download the checklist or a component of
it and use the data freely but acknowledge the source of the data, and where
relevant the author or compiler of the particular component of the checklist that isused. Obviously extraction and publication in a different format and forum by someone
other than the compiler should not be permitted without the permission of thecompiler. The checklist website should explicitly state any limitations for use andthe requirements for acknowledgement.
Published and web-based resources will be used in the compilation of a checklist andthe source should be referenced in the checklist. Some resources may require that
permission to use data be obtained or have other copyright requirements to becomplied with.

October 201233

Compiling, Maintaining and Disseminating National Species Checklists

Version 1.0

8. References
Arnold, T.H. & De Wet, C. (eds). 1993. Plants of southern Africa: names and distribution
Issue 62 of Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa. National BotanicalInstitute, Pretoria, 825pp.
Crosskey, 1980. Catalogue of Afrotropical Diptera. British Museum (Natural History),
London. 1235pp.
Figueiredo, E. & Smith, G.F. 2008. Plants of Angola / Plantas de Angola. Strelitzia 22: 1–
282. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
GBIF (2010a). Best practices in publishing species checklists. Contributed by Remsen, D.,
Döring, M., & Robertson, T. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility,
20pp. Accessible online at http://links.gbif.org/checklist_best_practices.
GBIF (2010b). GBIF GNA Profile Reference Guide for Darwin Core Archives, version 1.0,
released on 1 April 2011, (contributed by Remsen D.P., Döring, M, Robertson, T.),
Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, 28 pp,. Accessible at
http://links.gbif.org/gbif_gna_profile_reference_guide.
Germishuisen, G. & Meyer, N.L. (eds). 2003. Plants of southern Africa: an annotatedchecklist. Strelitzia 14.
Germishuizen, G., Meyer, N.L., Steenkamp, Y. and Keith, M. (eds). 2006. A checklist ofSouth African plants. Southern African Botanical Diversity Network Report 41
SABONET, Pretoria.
Harvey, W.H. 1838. The Genera of South African Plants. Cape Town, 429 pp.
Phillips, E.P. 1926. The Genera of South African Flowering Plants. Cape Times Ltd, Cape
Town. 702pp.
Remsen, D., Knapp, S., Georgiev, T., Stoev, P. & Penev, L. 2012. From text to structured
data: Converting a word-processed floristic checklist into Darwin Core Archive
format. PhytoKeys 9: 1–13, doi: 10.3897/phytokeys.9.2770.
Smith, G.F. & Figueiredo, E. 2010. E-taxonomy: an affordable tool to fill the biodiversity
knowledge gap. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 829–836.
Welter-Schultes, F.W. (2012). Guidelines for the capture and management of digital
zoological names information, version 1.0, released on June 2012, Copenhagen: Global
Biodiversity Information Facility, 126 pp, ISBN: 87-92020-44-5, accessible online at
http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=2784.

October 201234