Best Practice Guidelines
in the Development and Maintenance ofRegional Marine Species Checklists
Version 1.0

August 2012

Suggested citation:
Nozères, C., Vandepitte, L., Appeltans, W., Kennedy, M. (2012). Best Practice Guidelines
in the Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists, version 1.0,
released on August 2012. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, 32 pp,
ISBN: 87-92020-46-1, accessible online at http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=4712.

ISBN: 87-92020-46-1 (10 digits), 978-87-92020-46-8 (13 digits).
Persistent URI: http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=4712.
Language: English.
Copyright © Nozères, C., Vandepitte, L., Appeltans, W., Kennedy, M. & Global
Biodiversity Information Facility, 2012.
This document was produced in collaboration with OBIS Canada/Fisheries andOceans Canada, EurOBIS/VLIZ and the UNESCO/IOC project office for IODE,
Ostend, Belgium.

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
August 2012

Author(s)Nozères, Vandepitte,
Appeltans & Kennedy
Nozères, Vandepitte,
Appeltans & Kennedy

Cover Art Credit: GBIF Secretariat, 2012. Image by Gytizzz (Lithuania), obtainedby stock.xchng (http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1379825).

iiDevelopment and Maintenance of Regional Marine 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 in which biodiversity
information is freely and universally available for science, society, and a sustainable
future’. GBIF’s mission is to be the foremost global resource for biodiversity information,and engender smart solutions for environmental and human well-being1. To achieve thismission, GBIF encourages a wide variety of data publishers across the globe to discoverand 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
August 2012iii

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures ................................................................... v
Preface .......................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................... 3
Aim of this report ........................................................................... 3
Setting up a business plan ................................................................. 3
How to create a marine species checklist ............................................... 4
Part I: Building a list ......................................................................... 4
Taxonomic range ............................................................................ 4
Spatial range ................................................................................. 5
Temporal range .............................................................................. 8
Notes or attributes .......................................................................... 9Compiling names and associated notes .................................................. 9
Building a bibliography of sources .............................................................. 9
Obtaining definitions for geographic areas ................................................... 10Part II: Reviewing information ........................................................... 11
Adopting a taxonomic name standard .................................................. 11
Reviewing species names and synonyms ............................................... 11
Using taxon matching tools .............................................................. 12
WoRMS Taxon Match Tool ....................................................................... 12
Combining name matching tools ............................................................... 13
Retaining synonyms of scientific names ...................................................... 14

Obtaining vernacular names ............................................................. 15
Geographic names ......................................................................... 15
Reviewing geography ............................................................................ 16
Creating distribution notes ..................................................................... 16

Reviewing flags ............................................................................ 16
Part III: Maintaining a register ............................................................ 18
Editors ...................................................................................... 18
Spreadsheet design ....................................................................... 18
Database design ........................................................................... 19
Notes design................................................................................ 20
August 2012iv

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Checklist products ........................................................................ 20
Summary ...................................................................................... 22
References ................................................................................... 23
Appendix 1. Case Example: BeRMS ...................................................... 25
Appendix 2. Case Example: CaRMS ...................................................... 27

List of Tables and Figures
Table /
Caption of the Table / Figure
Figure No.
1.
Taxonomic scope defined as groupings by classification hierarchy,functional groupings (e.g., life stage), or survey technique (samplingtype).
2.
The Gulf of St. Lawrence as an example of delimiting a region andits sub-areas in terms of administrative zones (black lines: NAFO
fishing divisions), bathymetric features (blue: channels and straits),
and functional groupings (red lines: estuary, gulf, ocean).
3.
Sources for marine area definitions. A) Government document
published for a study area. B) Study area reported and madeavailable in a marine gazetteer.
4.
Excerpt of results using the taxonomic standard of WoRMS. A)
Searched name. B) Standard code (AphiaID). C) Name status D)
Accepted name (currently valid name). E) Links to other global
species resources.
5.
Example of user intervention to complete taxon matching with 1)
spelling error and 2) ambiguous scientific names.
1.
Examples of complementary taxon name matching tools online in2012.
2.
Examples of specialized online resources for marine taxa references.
6.
Examples of species lists retaining alternate synonyms. A) Checklist
by Trott (2004b), p. 274, showing historical synonyms along with thecurrent name in bold type. B). Catalogue by Brunel et al. (1998), p.
73 listing a scientific name with its synonym in the notes or remarks(“Remarque”).
7.
Registers hosted as regional species lists on the WoRMS website

August 2012

P. No.
5
7

10
12

13
14
14
15

21

v

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Preface
The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) has released a call for proposals todevelop a best practices guide in the development and maintenance of species checklists.
GBIF’s interest is for these practices to serve as a guide for future efforts to build andmaintain species lists. A first guide applied to national checklists of terrestrial species,
while the present document will cover checklists for regions and their marine species.
The compilation of any checklist of names includes four basic steps:
obtain a definition for the geographic area to be covered

define the taxonomic scope of the checklist

compile authoritative lists of taxon distributions within this areavalidate the lists of names and update synonyms to currently accepted scientificnames

But nothing will be simple, particularly when it comes to dealing with marine species. The
following are some of the challenges when constructing checklists:Sub-regions: many regions may wish to have their checklist subdivided, forexample, into east and west or north and south, or intertidal marine versus
oceanic.



Frontiers: countries will have checklists reaching past boundaries, notably formarine species.

Source: information on taxon groups must be determined, originating from peerreviewed publications to lists from biological surveys or citizen science activities.



Historical: older reports may list species no longer present in an area.

Names: similarly, older reports often contain taxonomic names that are no longer
in use, due to revisions in the names (synonymy) or the classification hierarchy.

Georeferencing: a source may provide general distribution information without
clearly defining the area (e.g., giving a place name instead of a bounding box ofspatial coordinates).

Notes: it may be desirable to attribute notes to species names, such as introduced,
invasive, pest, commercial value, seasonal, endangered, protected, vagrant,
marine, freshwater.

Registers: choosing a standard name list is required for resolving spellingvariations and assigning the classification hierarchy.

August 20121

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Orphans: names not present in the accepted standard.

The Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS) (Costello et al. 2007) would like tooffer its assistance with the creation of the GBIF guidelines. OBIS is currently drafting a
Node manager’s guide for processing datasets. One section is dedicated to thestandardization of species names and describes the process of matching names withaccepted taxonomic standards. This taxon name matching process identifies spellingvariations and also links older synonyms with accepted names.
The World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) is the leading source of names for marine
taxa (Appeltans et al. 2011) and is the taxonomic standard of OBIS. The WoRMS database
design easily incorporates content from regional registers of marine species. These
registers contain species distribution information for defined regions.

August 20122

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Introduction
Aim of this report
Technical guides and work plans for best practices in creating species checklists (e.g.,
GBIF 2011) are available from the GBIF online resource center(http://www.gbif.org/orc/). These reports explain how to make best use of the dataset
standard using Darwin Core terms, presenting and publishing checklists under theframework of Darwin Core Archive (DwC-A), and by using the Integrated Publishing Tool
(IPT).
The present document covers the more general aspects regarding checklists for marine
regions. It outlines the steps required to compile distribution notes, to set up a register,and to produce a checklist, but also describes some of stumbling blocks that one might
encounter along the way and offers suggestions on how to handle these issues.

Setting up a business plan
Before undertaking the work of a checklist, a business plan should first be developed withthe following ideas in mind:

Vision: Explain why you are creating a checklist.

Mission Statement: Explain what the checklist is about, what it does, and who thetarget groups are.



Timeline: Detail the start date and foreseen end date (or dates for completion of
the different phases).



Strategies: What is needed to keep the checklist up-to-date, to make sure thedata providers are active and that the checklist is used by the target audience?



Funds Required: What budget and resources are required to keep the checklist upto-date? Include a projection for at least one year.

August 20123

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

How to create a marine species checklist
Part I: Building a list
A checklist is an authoritative list of taxa for a defined area. Content required to create
these checklists should be archived in a database (to be called a register). To develop achecklist, the scope of the species register must be defined. The principal features ofinterest should be described, and they fall under the following headings:
Taxonomic rangeSpatial range

Temporal range



Notes (attributes)

Taxonomic range
The taxonomic scope covered under a checklist usually refers to a subset of the taxonomichierarchy (classification). In some instances, other species groupings may be desirable,
such as by ecological function or habitat, or by sampling or observation techniques.
A subset of a taxonomic hierarchy may list members belonging to a particular taxon rank(e.g., class, order, or family). Common examples in the marine realm are checklists forfishes, polychaetes, crustaceans, echinoderms, or molluscs. These taxon group lists may
provide more information or be easier to construct than a general list of all the species
from a marine region. Thus, a workgroup may have an expertise in fishes, but not be
concerned with invertebrates, nor have the means to evaluate their presence in detail.
Likewise, polychaete specialists may not be equipped to consider fisheries observations forbuilding a broader taxonomic checklist.
In marine work, it is often important to establish lists for functional groups, based on
attributes beyond classification hierarchies (Fig. 1). A plankton grouping may comprisesmall organisms such as bacteria and viruses, or the larval, free-living stages of
invertebrates and fishes (Li et al. 2011). A benthos grouping would also encompass a wide
range of organisms, excluding the pelagic species and the planktonic life stages. Thus, agroup describing a checklist of fishes may seek to effectively exclude larval (planktonic)
stages of their targeted species. Likewise, reports of sessile (fixed) benthos may choose toignore the presence of free-living planktonic stages.
Groupings of taxa may be also developed on the basis of survey techniques (Fig. 1).
Compared to terrestrial surveys of species, marine surveying is a costly and difficult
August 20124

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

enterprise, and may need to be conducted remotely or through indirect means. Thus,
checklists may be developed for water column sampling, sea bottom sampling, orunderwater images. The effective constraints of the sampling or observation technique
may thus define the scope of taxa that may be found in a list.
The purpose and extent of the taxonomic scope may be laid out when publishing a species
checklist. Occasionally, with internal documents produced for a certain group or
audience, it may be assumed the user is aware of the limits in species coverage. However,
it is good practice to be explicit in taxonomic scoping when presenting checklists or otherspecies compilations (e.g., Bourdages and Ouellet 2011). This will help new users who may
be unfamiliar with the species, their ecology, and the methods involved in making thelists.

Figure 1. Taxonomic scope defined as groupings by classification hierarchy, functional groupings(e.g., life stage), or survey technique (sampling type).

Spatial range
The spatial range of a checklist deals with the extent of the area to be examined. There
are two main challenges in defining a spatial range for a marine list. The first is that mostsources of information, such as historical observations and checklists, have varying
degrees of precision in terms of geography. Thus, a taxon may be reported in a generalmanner, e.g., “Atlantic Ocean” or “France,” in which case the centre point (centroid on acontinent) is not of much value for recording precise coordinates. In other cases, a locality(place name) may be reported with coordinates that are lacking in accuracy, due toAugust 20125

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

rounding errors or general value, e.g., if a record of 49° N, 60° W is entered to eight
decimal places: 49.0000000 N, 60.000000 W. These ambiguities represent difficulties in 1)
establishing what records to include in a defined checklist and 2) choosing how to define amarine area.
Marine areas can appear arbitrary in extent or group association. It helps then to make useof an area definition from a recognized source, published in print or as an electronic
resource. An area definition may be available as a text description, have coordinates, or
have available spatial files such as Google Earth KML and ESRI shape files. Although theemphasis may be for terrestrial localities, marine area definitions are also available fromglobal databases such as GeoNames (http://www.geonames.org/), the Getty Thesaurus of
Geographic Names, (http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/tgn/index.html),
or national resource centres, such as the Geographical Names Board of Canada database(http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/index_e.php). Because of the gaps in large-scale
databases, it may be useful to consult regional resources for more detailed and up-to-datespatial definitions. In Canada again, one example is the provincial Commission de
toponymie Québec (http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/accueil.html). These databases
give spatial definitions of places, including marine features found in areas covered bysurveys from that government.
For marine work, boundaries may be natural, arbitrary, or ill-defined. A natural boundary
may be a sea, bay, or other semi-enclosed area. The definition does not have to follow
political boundaries—it could be a fishing area (e.g., FAO, NAFO)2, an ocean or sea area
(IHO)3, an ecosystem-defined area (e.g., MEOW, LME)4, or some convenient, albeit
arbitrary, division of a region, such as north/south, west/east. Definitions of broader
international areas may be consulted from marine data institutions, including ICES andNAFO in the North Atlantic. An important source of marine spatial definitions is the VLIZ
Marine Gazetteer (VLIMAR) (http://www.vliz.be/vmdcdata/vlimar/downloads.php),
hosted and maintained by the Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ). In addition to listing
information on well-known marine spatial areas, VLIMAR accepts reports defining any
marine region. This makes it particularly useful as a standard resource for marine
biogeography.
The principal resource for defining the marine scope is the General Bathymetric Chart of
the Oceans (GEBCO). The GEBCO consortium of ocean mapping experts provides data
products including an undersea features gazetteer of place names and bathymetric grids

2

FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization, NAFO: Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
IHO: International Hydrographic Organization
4
LME: Large Marine Ecosystems of the World, MEOW: Marine Ecoregions of the World
3

August 20126

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

as a digital atlas or paper charts (IOC, IHO, BODC 2003). The gazetteer can be downloaded(http://www.gebco.net/data_and_products/undersea_feature_names/) as a spreadsheet
or a table. Of the 3,560 features in the latest version (August 2011), approximately 2,300
are already available in VLIMAR, with more additions to be added by VLIZ in 2012.
Similar to taxonomy, spatial scope may not need always be defined as part of a hierarchy,
such as subregions and regions in a gazetteer. Marine systems may also be defined byfunctional groupings, for example, inshore and offshore areas. Inshore areas range fromthe intertidal to shelf-like marine areas. On the intertidal, some species may be
encountered above the high-water mark. In some cases, scope should be defined by tidal
level (e.g., low vs. high tide water marks) or submerged (e.g., mudflats, rock pools) vs.
above water (e.g., dunes, sand bars). One also needs to draw a line between marine,
brackish, and freshwater parts of estuaries, because the tidal impact sometimes reaches
far into the freshwater area. On inshore shelves, areas may be defined by undersea
features (bathymetric outlines) or water column (hydrographic) features such as currents.
The Gulf of St. Lawrence in Canada can serve as an example (Fig. 2). This semi-enclosed
sea may be delimited as a single body or as subregions based on hydrology and bathymetry
from its channels and shelves.

Figure 2. The Gulf of St. Lawrence as an example of delimiting a region and its sub-areas in termsof administrative zones (black lines: NAFO fishing divisions), bathymetric features (blue: channels
and straits), and functional groupings (red lines: estuary, gulf, ocean).
August 20127

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

With offshore areas, broad features such as abyssal plains and shallow plateaus are
punctuated by seamounts and canyons that may be difficult to resolve from global
geographical sources. As with place names, agencies may need to work with regionalgroups or research institutes to obtain detailed information on local areas that may be
unavailable from one-degree grids of global maps.
In some areas, defining regional boundaries may vary over time. While some are due tochanges in barriers (e.g., temperature), other cases may be due to increased knowledgeof species distributions relative to historical definitions (Mecklenburg et al. 2011).

Temporal range
Species encountered in areas may change through time, which should be an additional
consideration when building a checklist. Temporal scope may involve differences from thepast, changes for the future, or the life history of organisms. In the first scenario, apresent-day list may decide to exclude past species occurrences. This may be due tochanges in species distribution or extirpations that have occurred since past surveys (Trott
2004a). Thus, taxa presently encountered adjacent to the defined area may be foundwithin the area given favourable changes to their habitat distribution. In this situation, it
may be desirable to define a scope for future changes in a checklist, for example, toinclude changes due to climate change and possible warming, with a subsequent spread ofcertain taxa to higher latitudes.
With the life history of taxa, their presence may depend on the season, or in some cases
on extraordinary events such as blooms and species invasions or epidemics. Seasonality isa major feature in the presence of many marine animals, with fishes, birds, cetaceans,and pinnipeds undertaking long-distance migrations for feeding or reproduction during
defined periods of the year. Life history also plays a role with some species that enter themarine environment at certain stages, commonly seen with fishes such as salmonids.
Blooms are extraordinary reports of abundance, with the presence of taxa possibly
seasonal or punctual and unique. Examples may be the bloom of planktonic algae in areas
previously underreported or unknown with changes in hydrology due to freshwater runoff.
Other events such as disease epidemics or competition from invasive species may change
the number and types of taxa in an area compared to past lists. Two examples are 1) the
disruption and re-emergence of marine eelgrass beds (Zostera marina) in the Northwest
Atlantic over several decades (Short et al. 1987) and 2) the spread of the invasive green
crab (Carcinus maenas) in Canadian waters (Klassen and Locke 2007). This last example
may be a consideration for expanding or including extralimital or non-native species in alist, taking into account the shifts over time with the local ecology and habitat (e.g.,
shifts related to climate change).
August 20128

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Notes or attributes
Several of the considerations described above for defining the scope are of a special
nature. These considerations may be useful to note or flag in order to build a checklist,
but also to adjust and build related checklists based on such flags for another set oftaxonomic groups and area. The more common notes to add are attributes for distribution,
habitat, life history, and ecology. Distribution notes are indicators of presence in thedefined areas, while Habitat notes indicate the habitat type, such as intertidal,
deepwater, pelagic, water column, or sea bed. Life history notes are important to flag
species for their traits, ideally, as a combination between a life stage (larva to adult) andthe “lifestyle” of that stage (e.g., benthic, sessile, planktonic, pelagic; Fig. 1). Ecology
notes indicate attributes that have relations with other taxa, in particular invasive,
bloom, parasite, or predator species.
The use of notes to add flags or attributes to taxa in a list will increase the value ofchecklists beyond a simple list of species occurring in certain places (Winston 1999).
However, perhaps even more than with taxonomy and geography, the challenge will be toestablish a standard manner of reporting and using notes, either as open text (comments)
or a set of terms (controlled vocabulary). Several registers may provide defined lists ofterms to use as a standard vocabulary, such as the Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries
Abstracts (ASFA Thesaurus, http://www4.fao.org/asfa/asfa.htm). Recently, WoRMS and
GeoHab have produced a glossary of standard terms for use in marine biology, ecology,
and geology (Costello et al. 2010) (http://www.marinespecies.org/glossary/).

Compiling names and associated notes
The sources of taxonomic names and notes used in the checklist should be documented. In
most cases, this involves bibliographic research of print and electronic sources in primary
publications and secondary sources including reports, theses, or non-published lists anddocuments (Winston 1999). The first sources to turn to may be web repositories such as
the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) (http://www.biodiversity-library.org/) and thecomplementary tools on the BioStor website (http://biostor.org/) to search documents forhistorical species lists. The WoRMS Literature Sources search webpage may also be used toobtain taxonomic sources. These initial sources may trigger a second search in linked
sources or institutions, or their (online) resources.

Building a bibliography of sources
Once literature has been compiled for the groups of interest, the discovered sources may
be assigned flags by type, such as publication, expert opinion, or dataset. Publications are
generally preferred for use as authoritative sources.
August 20129

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Obtaining definitions for geographic areas
As introduced above under the heading of spatial scope, the principal sources for marine
area definitions are the GEBCO atlas and the VLIMAR gazetteer. National hydrographic andcharting agencies are additional providers, especially for local regions not yet listed in
GEBCO or VLIMAR. In cases where the spatial coverage has been defined to overlap orinclude land areas, other agencies may be consulted to provide additional definitions.
Conservation groups and government agencies may be sources to provide definitions
attributed to marine protected areas, conservation zones, and marine reserves (Fig. 3). In
many instances, these special areas will have spatial attributes available, usually as
coordinate pairs, grid references, or shape files.

Figure 3. Sources for marine area definitions. A) Government document published for a study
area. B) Study area reported and made available in a marine gazetteer.

August 201210

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Part II: Reviewing information
Adopting a taxonomic name standard
The compilation of source lists and other information will invariably reveal taxonomic
names having different status and scientific authorship. Fortunately, the global
biodiversity community has produced established standards to adopt when assigning names
to taxa. Currently, three of the best-known standards are the Integrated Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS), the Catalogue of Life (CoL), and the World Register of Marine
Species (WoRMS). ITIS is well known as a standard for terrestrial and freshwater species,
but their main focus is North America. Marine taxonomy is particularly challenging, andthe advances made by taxonomic editors at WoRMS has lead to WoRMS being therecommended resource for marine species in databases such as OBIS, GBIF, EoL, FAO,
SeaDataNet, IODE, and many others (http://www.marinespecies.org/users.php). For bothof these standards, a unique code or serial number is associated with each taxon name,thus enabling the ability to match and compare between name versions. In the case of
WoRMS, each taxon has its AphiaID and, when available, its associated TSN (the code fromITIS), and thus this register provides the names and codes from both of these taxonomic
name standards.

Reviewing species names and synonyms
The adoption of a taxonomic standard is followed by determining the appropriate taxon
name, synonym, or version of a taxon name to be used in a checklist. Once a standard isadopted, it is possible to link synonyms to the associated and currently accepted taxon
name.
For the new user, the concept of synonyms may be a confusing and frustrating exercise
when consulting taxonomic standards. Firstly, after choosing a standard, it may be
expected that only one name is available for use. On registers like ITIS and WoRMS, thisname is flagged as valid or accepted. In some cases, the valid name has undergone
further review and may be flagged as verified (ITIS) or checked by Taxonomic Editor(WoRMS). Other name versions, or synonyms, may be present in the standard registers.
These variations include multiple descriptions of the same species (i.e.,
subjective/heterotypic synonyms) or historical spelling errors and name changes due totaxonomic revisions (i.e., objective/homotypic synonyms). These synonyms may be
flagged as unaccepted or invalid (Fig. 4).

August 201211

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Figure 4. Excerpt of results using the taxonomic standard of WoRMS. A) Searched name. B)
Standard code (AphiaID). C) Name status. D) Accepted name (currently valid name). E) Links toother global species resources.

An issue with names in historical lists may be the perception of competing values orauthorities when these names undergo spelling or phylogenetic changes. However, theinclusion of standard codes makes it possible to continue to cite the older synonyms as it
is linked to the currently accepted name. It is still important to record the names as they
were published. This enables the reader to retrieve the information in the online resource
and to correctly interpret the old literature.

Using taxon matching tools
WoRMS Taxon Match Tool
The correct spelling of a species name is not always trivial (e.g., which one is correct:
Cirrhitichthys, Cirrhitychthys or Cirritichthys ?), and it is very difficult for nontaxonomists to keep up with the valid status of species names. To help users in thissituation, WoRMS offers a powerful, semi-automated name validation tool to crosscheckthe spelling and taxonomic status of species against the WoRMS database.
The tool is an implementation of the new TAXAMATCH matching algorithm written by Tony
Rees (CSIRO, Australia, http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/taxamatch.htm), which
comprises a suite of custom filters and tests used in succession on genus, species epithet,plus authority where supplied. It also uses the Scientific Names Parser written by Dmitry
Mozzherin.
August 201212

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

The tool returns standard taxonomic information in a user-friendly format (e.g., MS Excel
or tab delimited text file). The user needs to upload a list of species names and match thecolumns with the fields in the database. When there are multiple potential matches, thesystem provides a pick-list. The system will then return the file with the valid names (itcorrects the spelling if there are close matches found and notifies when the name is anunaccepted synonym). Several related fields from the WoRMS database can also be
selected to accompany the returned name file, including the authority and publication
date, the hierarchical classification, quality status (expert validated or not), and thechecklist globally unique identifiers (GUIDs).
It is a very popular tool already appreciated by thousands of users, with an average of 14
files uploaded daily. More information is available at:
http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=match. Instructions to assist the user are
documented in an online manual:
http://www.marinespecies.org/tutorial/taxonmatch.php

Combining name matching tools
The WoRMS taxon match tool is highly effective for obtaining taxonomic codes and notesfrom lists of names. However, user intervention is required in case of 1) major spelling
differences (it does capture one and two character differences and phonetic variations)and 2) ambiguities (potential homonyms with differing authorities) (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Example of user intervention to complete taxon matching with 1) spelling error and 2)
ambiguous scientific names.

If no results are produced for spelling variations, the user will need to turn to alternative
tools, either online or in print. Several web tools are currently available (April 2012) from
ITIS, uBio, GNI, and IRMNG (Table 1). In case of doubt, the WoRMS data management teamAugust 201213

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

can be contacted and the taxon name can be sent to the taxonomic editors for verificationand possible addition to WoRMS.
Web tool
ITIS
uBio
GNI
IRMNG
BioStorComment
Contains some marine synonyms not listed in WoRMS
Covers freshwater aquatic species
Finds partial and whole names from several sources (ITIS, Zoobank, NCBI)
Additional tools to parse texts for taxonomic terms, e.g., FindIT
Global Names Index: aggregator of principal scientific name repositories
Additional tools to parse texts for taxonomic terms, e.g., Name Parser
Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera, by Tony Rees, CSIRO
Searches by species and higher taxa levels, including partial names
Aggregator web tool by Rod Page, University of Glasgow
Facilitates searching BHL online texts for taxon names

Table 1. Examples of complementary taxon name matching tools online in 2012.

Print sources are good for revealing synonyms, both of valid names in the past (different
classifications) and also of spelling variations, either deliberate (Latin naming rules, notphylogeny) or accidental (error). To discover these print sources, and as may have been
the case in the initial search for lists of names, it may be useful to consult specialized
species databases on the web and their bibliographies (Table 2).
Web tool
AlgaeBase
Malacolog
Fishbase
Catalog of Fishes
Hexacorallians of
the World

Taxa covered
Plantae, Chromista, Protozoa
Western Atlantic molluscs (shellfish) species database
Fishes, names and literature
Fishes, with review of names and literature
Cnidarians (corals, sea anemones), with reviews of names, literature,
distribution, environmental and other notes

Table 2. Examples of specialized online resources for marine taxa references.

Retaining synonyms of scientific names
Upon completing the review of all scientific names in the initial species lists, the version
containing the names as originally reported should be retained. In a spreadsheet, this
could take the form of a list with the given name (including spelling errors), the namesubmitted to WoRMS, and the accepted version. Both submitted and accepted names will
have corresponding AphiaID codes. Alternatively, and more commonly viewed in print, a
final product of a checklist or catalogue of species may be to highlight the valid species
term along with a listing of synonyms. More information on final list products is
documented later in this report, but for illustrative purposes, two examples for marine
species are shown below: the historical checklist of Cobscook Bay intertidal invertebrates
by Trott (2004b) and the catalogue of St. Lawrence invertebrates by Brunel et al. 1998
(Fig. 6).
August 201214

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Figure 6. Examples of species lists retaining alternate synonyms. A) Checklist by Trott (2004b), p.
274, showing historical synonyms along with the current name in bold type. B). Catalogue by
Brunel et al. (1998), p. 73 listing a scientific name with its synonym in the notes or remarks(“Remarque”).

Obtaining vernacular names
Vernaculars, or common names, may be desired when compiling a species list. Certain
groups, such as commercially important (fishing or aquaculture) species, will have ahistory of common names in the local or regional language. For these groups, lists ofcommon names may be available. However, most species are only known by theirscientific names, with no vernacular equivalent. In some cases, for regional databases,
common names are “invented” or composed arbitrarily from the Latin binomial into a
local language. As with taxonomic names, it is preferable to make use of an establishedstandard for vernacular names. Global web tools such as FishBase, FAO, ITIS, and WoRMS
are good sources. Regional variations of common names may be found in local
publications. For example, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) publishes books with
North American names, both common and scientific, for fishes, molluscs, and decapod
crustaceans (e.g., Nelson et al. 2004). On a local scale, Brian Coad regularly publishes anonline fish checklist including regional English and French Canadian common names (Coad2011).

Geographic names
For obtaining spatial definitions and place names, several resources were described in thefirst section. These resources will also be useful to verify the geography from given lists ofspecies. If it is said that a species appears in a certain region based on literature, then it
is equally important to check whether this is correct. This can be done by consulting field
August 201215

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

experts. If the distribution is doubtful or proves to be wrong, this can be indicated; forexample, in the WoRMS database, the distribution will be flagged as “invalid” (for moredetails see http://www.marinespecies.org/tutorial.php - topic18).

Reviewing geography
Geo-referencing documents are often best when applied to terrestrial species. Marine
species may have special challenges as to how their distribution is recorded in source lists.
For example, sampling while at-sea may take place in a precise area, but the record isgiven with reference to the nearest land-based populated area—even if this is several
dozen kilometres away. In these cases, using a gazetteer with place names can present
problems if the given coordinates will result in land-based positioning. Such scenarios may
be verified by projecting the spatial coordinates on a digital mapping tool such as Google
Maps or Google Earth. For lists of coordinates, there are online mapping tools such as GPS
Visualizer (http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/) and the marine-oriented GeoMapApp by theLamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (http://www.geomapapp.org/).
While on-land places and coordinates may be obvious candidates for correction when theyrefer to marine species, some consideration may be necessary concerning how the record
was obtained or recorded. Even if obvious to a taxonomic specialist, the erroneous
distribution of species may not be evident to users when compiling long lists of dozen oreven thousands of species names. Examples include 1) intertidal species that are not inerror if projected spatially on a land area and 2) deep-sea species that are recorded withreference to a nearby coastal town. These cases reveal the value of notes and flags.

Creating distribution notes
Distribution notes are comments associated with species names in the regional checklist.
As with synonyms—because of the value of such notes when defining the members of thechecklist—they are often given a special place when building the lists, either as a databasetable or a spreadsheet field. In the case of marine registers such as WoRMS, distribution
notes are single terms for recognized marine place names (as defined in the VLIMAR
gazetteer). However, having a name included in a defined marine area does not imply thatthe species is found everywhere in that area: it may be at its limit or a rare/transient
resident.

Reviewing flags
A number of characters are of interest to flag in a regional checklist. The definitions ofthese terms should go to a glossary. Preferably the flags will take the form of structured
attributes (e.g., feeding types, or flags for marine vs. freshwater) as opposed toAugust 201216

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

unstructured notes (text comments). Some of the information conveyed by the notes may
include the following:

The first and last time the species was observed

If the species is endemic to the region, at the boundary of its distribution, or
widespread (so local protection is less urgent)

If the species is common (abundant) or rare

If the species has established populations and/or reproduces in the area

If the species has known impacts on the local ecosystem

If the species is commercially important (e.g., food, pharmacy, pest remediation,
reef building, construction builder [corals], biofouling)

If the species is vulnerable to certain marine activities (e.g., windmills, oil
platforms, ship traffic)



If the species has a local legal protection status

The number of records currently contained in a global database such as OBIS.

August 201217

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Part III: Maintaining a register
A species checklist is a final product based on compiled and maintained resources.
Generating and updating such products is assisted with the use of spreadsheets andrelational databases. The action of making such products is the result of work by assigned
individuals. Provided there is a commitment of resources to maintain a register, a board of
editors should be established that consists of taxonomic and data management experts.
This is followed by work to ensure the updating, reception, and collaboration for species
data. An example of the development of marine species registers is documented in the
recent report by Van Guelpen and Kennedy (2011).

Editors
The editorial board of a register consists of taxonomic and data management experts.
Distribution records for names listed in the database have been, or are being, checked andupdated by local taxonomic experts. In WoRMS, the editorial board of a regional checklist
does not have direct authority to modify taxonomic information; however, the editors may
collaborate with WoRMS taxonomic editors to effect changes. Duties to be performed by
the editorial board include the following:

reviewing unverified register records by assigning authoritative notes

compiling distribution notes for areas of interest to scientists

compiling taxonomic notes for taxa not included in the ITIS and/or WoRMS
databases for unverified taxa and for taxa with out-of-date information

compiling information associated with taxonomic records in ITIS and/or WoRMS
such as feeding type, morphology, or invasive status

assigning the terms fresh, brackish, or marine to entries in the register

providing advice in the mapping of species lists to the register to standardize
taxonomy, and provide standard codes for mismatches due to variations in spellingof the taxonomic name or missing or misspelled authorship

providing advice on the mapping of non-taxonomic terms to vocabulary lists

providing images of taxa for a taxon photo gallery.

Spreadsheet design
Relational databases with linked tables are commonly employed for data-intensive
operations like species registers or checklists. However, spreadsheets (flat files) can be
August 201218

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

valuable points of entry or useful intermediate work stages. Several groups, including
Barcode of Life (BoL), OBIS, and GBIF, have developed spreadsheet templates and user
guides, in particular to assist with field collection or submitting data from new users.

Database design
The register database is a simple version of the actual database; it contains the taxonomic
and related information. In the case of the WoRMS tables, the main fields are as follows:

AphiaID;



Taxon name;

Authority;

Taxon Rank;



Taxon status + Record status

Parent-child relationship (classification);

Accepted taxon relationship (synonymy);Vernaculars (common names);

Environment flags (marine/brackish/fresh/terrestrial);Sources (including weblinks, DOI, PDFs);

Published distributions (including misidentifications), linked to gazetteer;Specimens (including code, museum, links, identification history, and so on);

Ecological traits (e.g., feeding, associations);

Deeplinks (e.g., GenBank, BOLD), but also PDFs, file cards, and others;Images;

License;

Page citation.

The database requirements are a taxonomic table, a list of defined areas (gazetteer),authoritative sources, notes, and flags.
A regional register such as the CaRMS database uses the same technology platform as the
WoRMS database. It contains a main (taxonomic) table with names and authoritativenotes. Authoritative means that each note is associated with a source and each source isassigned a type (publication, expert, database), and the full reference is also included.
August 201219

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

This determination should be conducted by the taxonomic editors rather than the data
managers.
The standardized design of the register database will become valuable when checklists areintegrated with wider biological databases. This is perhaps especially true for marine
species databases that seek to integrate differing groups (plankton, pelagic, benthos,larvae, adults, habitats) and sources (international and national surveys), for example,
with initiatives such as LargeNet (Vandepitte et al. 2010).

Notes design
Notes may be of several types—feeding, morphology, habitat—but there are two maintypes of notes in the WoRMS database. These relate to taxonomy and geographicaldistribution. The main focus of a regional register is to compile distribution notes for areasof interest to local research.
Notes must be associated with an authoritative source. The source type may be one of thefollowing: expert, database, internet, or publication. Preference is given to recognizedpublished material. Full reference information for all sources used will be included in theliterature/source table associated with the species register.
Distribution notes may include a description, but must also contain a reference to adefined area in an associated atlas or gazetteer. The WoRMS database sources the VLIMAR
gazetteer.

Checklist products
The checklist may be distributed as a number of products. Publication may take the formof annotated online lists (e.g., Coad 2011, Eschmeyer 2012) or full data papers, as
provided by the Pensoft journals (e.g., ZooKeys). Other avenues include website hostingsuch as the recognized regional species lists on WoRMS (Fig. 7).

August 201220

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Figure 7. Registers hosted as regional species lists on the WoRMS website.

August 201221

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Summary
Marine species checklists share many of the same features and challenges as whencompiling checklists of terrestrial and freshwater species. At the same time, there areaspects of the marine environment and data collection that may be important factors
when developing a checklist. As a result, defining the scope and obtaining information areoften different from land-based biodiversity projects. Because of their different origins
and histories, working with marine species registers may emphasize taxonomic standards
and spatial definitions with biodiversity-related programs such as WoRMS and OBIS andmaritime agencies for mapping. These programs may provide additional or marineoriented and updated information, complementing the global biological data community
and assisting with the maintenance of checklists.

August 201222

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

References
Appeltans, W., Bouchet, P., Boxshall, G.A., Fauchald, K., Gordon, D.P., Hoeksema, B.W.,
Poore, G.C.B., van Soest, R.W.M., Stöhr, S., Walter, T.C., Costello, M.J. (eds).
2011. World Register of Marine Species. Accessed online at
http://www.marinespecies.org (2011-12).
BHL: Biodiversity Heritage Library. 2012. Accessed online at
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ (2012-03).
BioStor. 2012. Accessed online at http://biostor.org/ (2012-03).
Bourdages, H., Ouellet, J.-F. 2011. Geographic distribution and abundance indices ofmarine fish in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence (1990–2009). Can. Tech. Rep. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 2963: vi + 171 p.
Brunel, P., Bossé, L., Lamarche, G. 1998. Catalogue des invertébrés marins de l'estuaire etdu golfe du Saint-Laurent. Conseil national de recherches du Canada. Publ. spéc.
can. sci. halieut. aquat., 126. 405 p.
Coad, B. W. 2011. Fishes of Canada: an annotated checklist. Accessed online at
http://www.briancoad.com/Complete%20List.htm (revised: 2011-12-12).
Costello, M.J., Stocks, K., Zhang, Y., Grassle, J.F., Fautin, D.G. 2007. About the Ocean
Biogeographic Information System. Accessed online at
http://hdl.handle.net/2292/5236
Costello, M.J., Harris, P., Pearce, B., Fauchald, K., Fiorentino, A., Bourillet, J.-F.,
Hamylton, S. (eds). 2010. A glossary of terminology used in marine biology, ecology,
and geology. Version 1.0. Accessed online at
http://www.marinespecies.org/glossary/ (2012-03).
Eschmeyer, W.N. (ed.). 2012. Catalog of Fishes electronic version. Accessed online at
http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp(2012-03).
Fautin, D.G. 2011. Hexacorallians of the world. Accessed online at
http://geoportal.kgs.ku.edu/hexacoral/anemone2/index.cfm (version: 2011-0819).
Froese, R. Pauly, D. (eds). 2012. FishBase. Accessed online at http://www.fishbase.org(2012-02).
GBIF. 2011. Publishing species checklists, (contributed by Remsen D., Döring M.,
Robertson, T., Ko, B.), Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, 53 p.
Accessed online at http://links.gbif.org/checklist_how_to (2012-02).
IOC, IHO, BODC. 2003. Centenary edition of the GEBCO Digital Atlas, published on CD-ROM
on behalf of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and theInternational Hydrographic Organization as part of the General Bathymetric Chartof the Oceans; British Oceanographic Data Centre, Liverpool.
IRMNG: Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera. 2011. Accessed online at
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/irmng/ (revised: 2011-12-22).
Klassen, G., Locke, A. 2007. A biological synopsis of the European green crab, Carcinus
maenas. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. no. 2818: vii+75pp.
Li, W.K.W, Andersen, R.A, Gifford, D.J., Incze, L.S., Martin, J.L., et al. 2011. Planktonic
Microbes in the Gulf of Maine Area. PLoS ONE 6: e20981.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020981
Mecklenburg, C.W., Møller, P.R., Steinke, D. 2011. Biodiversity of arctic marine fishes:taxonomy and zoogeography. Mar. Biodiv. 41: 109-140.
Morris, P.J., and G. Rosenberg, 2005. Search interface and documentation for Malacolog,
an online database of Western Atlantic marine Mollusks. (version 4.1.1). Accessed
online at http://www.malacolog.org (revised: 2009-08-20).
Nelson, J.S., Crossman, E.J., Espinosa-Pérez, H., Findley, L.T., Gilbert, C.R., Lea, R.N.,
Williams, J.D. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States,
Canada, and Mexico. 6th ed. American Fisheries Society, Special Publ. 29,
Bethesda, MD.
August 201223

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Short, F.T., Muehlstein, L.K., Porter, D. 1987. Eelgrass wasting disease: cause andrecurrence of a marine epidemic. Biol. Bull. 173: 557-562.
Trott, T. J. 2004a. Late 20th-century qualitative intertidal faunal changes in Cobscook
Bay, Maine. Northeast. Nat. 11 (S2): 325-354.
Trott, T. J. 2004b. Cobscook Bay Inventory: a historical checklist of marine invertebrates
spanning 162 years. Northeast. Nat. 11 (S2): 261-324.
uBio. 2009. Universal Biological Indexer and Organizer. The Marine Biological Laboratory,
MS. Accessed online at http://www.ubio.org (2012-03).
Van Guelpen, L., and M. K. Kennedy. 2011. The history of Canadian registers of marine
species 2001-2009. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2906: iv+20 pp.
Vandepitte, L., Vanhoorne, B., Kraberg, A., Anisimova, N., Antoniadou, C., Araújo R.,
Bartsch I., Beker, B., Benedetti-Cecchi, L., Bertocci, I. et al. 2010. Data
integration for European marine biodiversity research: creating a database on
benthos and plankton to study large-scale patterns and long-term changes.
Hydrobiologia 644:1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10750-010-0108-z
VLIMAR: the VLIZ Marine Gazetteer. 2012. Accessed online at
http://www.vliz.be/vmdcdata/vlimar/index.php (2012-03).
Winston, J.E. 1999. Describing species: practical taxonomic procedure for biologists.
Columbia Univ. Press, NY, 518 p.

August 201224

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Appendix 1. Case Example: BeRMS
The Belgian Register of Marine species is a regional species database within the World
Register of Marine Species. It only includes species that are currently or were historicallyoccurring in the Belgian part of the North Sea. All species were taxonomically andgeographically validated before being added to the list. The geographic validation includes
the verification of its appearance within the defined region by field experts. Taxonomic
validation is done by the taxonomic experts connected with the World Register of Marine
Species.
Since 2000, the Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ) has compiled distribution information on
species from the Southern Bight of the North Sea into a single database known as theTaxonomic Information System for the Belgian coastal area, TISBE. TISBE tried to develop
a comprehensive list of all species recorded for the Belgian coast, the Southern Bight of
the North Sea, and its surrounding countries. The focal area for this species list spanned
from the rocky shores of the Boullonais in North France to southern Holland, including the
Delta area and the Scheldt estuary.
Despite the availability of a general list for the Southern Bight, there was a growing
demand for a species list only containing species present in the Belgian part of the North
Sea. In 2010, this general request led to the development of BeRMS, the Belgian Registerof Marine Species, a regional species database within the World Register of Marine Species(WoRMS).
BeRMS was primarily based on TISBE and extended with data and information from existing
initiatives. A number of databases containing Belgian marine distribution data weresearched for relevant species observations not yet included in BeRMS, such as theIntegrated Marine Environmental Readings and Samples database (IMERS) and theEuropean Ocean Biogeographic Information System (EurOBIS), both developed andmaintained by VLIZ. In addition, a new literature search was started to further complete
the Belgian marine species list.
This literature search, however, showed that not all distribution records weretrustworthy, leading to the fact that—solely based on literature—there would probably bean overestimation of the number of species present in the Belgian part of the North Sea.
This conclusion led to an additional quality check, where a whole range of field experts
were contacted and asked to help verify the geographical spread of all the species listed
as “present in the Belgian part of the North Sea”—based on literature—and to list
additional species or specific comments on a species such as “extinct in Belgian marine
waters,” “vagrant,” “misidentification”, and so on. All this additional information is also
August 201225

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

stored in the database. All experts contributing to the geographical validation of thespecies are acknowledged for their work and included in the “VLIZ Belgian Marine Species
Consortium,” which is listed on the website.
The Belgian Register of Marine Species is regularly updated: marine biologists are still
intensively studying the Belgian part of the North Sea and observations of currently
undetected species are bound to happen. Some groups, such as bacteria and protozoa, arepoorly studied within Belgium, making it currently impossible to create a trustworthy
species list for these groups. Research within Belgium is conscientiously followed up andany new observations will be added to the register.
As BeRMS is part of the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS), the taxonomic
correctness of the included species names is guaranteed by the taxonomic experts who
manage and maintain the content of the World Register.
VLIZ Belgian Marine Species Consortium. 2010. The Belgian Register of Marine Species.
Online available at http://www.marinespecies.org/berms. Consulted on 2012-03-29.

August 201226

Development and Maintenance of Regional Marine Species Checklists

Version 1.0

Appendix 2. Case Example: CaRMS
The Canadian Register of Marine Species (CaRMS) is a register containing authoritative
distribution records of interest to Canadian researchers, principally from Canadianregions, but also in areas of interest that may fall outside of Canadian waters.
CaRMS grew from local registers of marine species, such as the Northwest Atlantic Registerof Marine Species (NWARMS) and the Gulf of Maine Register of Marine Species (GoMRMS),
both of which were compiled by the Atlantic Reference Centre of the Huntsman Marine
Science Centre, St. Andrews, New Brunswick. The scope of CaRMS is to contain detailed
distribution records for taxa found in the three oceans surrounding Canada: the Atlantic,
the Arctic, and the Pacific.
CaRMS is recognized by WoRMS as a regional species list. The intent of CaRMS is not toduplicate WoRMS, and CaRMS was not designed to track changes in taxonomy. Each record in
the register contains a standard code that enables linkage to master databases such as the
WoRMS (AphiaID) and the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS TSN). Issues
related to synonymy, validity, and taxonomic hierarchy will be dealt with by theseorganizations.
Distribution records for names listed in CaRMS have been or are being verified by local
taxonomic experts. The CaRMS editorial board does not directly have the authority tomodify taxonomic information stored in WoRMS or ITIS; however, the editors may
collaborate with the WoRMS/ITIS taxonomic editors to effect changes.
Additional features of CaRMS include a web photo gallery of contributed images from
Canadian specimens and a checklist webpage for several marine subregions in Canada.
Kennedy, M.K., L. Van Guelpen, G. Pohle, L. Bajona (Eds.). 2010. Canadian Register ofMarine Species. Available online at http://www.marinespecies.org/carms/. Consulted on
2012-03-30.

August 201227