1. Biodiversity Informatics, 2, 2005, pp. 70-78
RESOLVING TAXONOMIC DISCREPANCIES: ROLE OF ELECTRONIC
CATALOGUES OF KNOWN ORGANISMS
VISHWAS CHAVAN, NILESH RANE, APARNA WATVE
Information Division, National Chemical Laboratory, Pune 411008, India.
AND
MICHAEL RUGGIERO
Integrated Taxonomic Information System, U.S. Geological Survey, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington D.C., USA
Abstract. —There is a disparity in availability of nomenclature change literature to the taxonomists of the
developing world and availability of taxonomic papers published by developing world scientists to their
counterparts in developed part of the globe. This has resulted in several discrepancies in the naming of
organisms. Development of electronic catalogues of names of known organisms would help in pointing out
these issues. We have attempted to highlight a few such discrepancies found while developing IndFauna, an
electronic catalogue of known Indian fauna, and comparing it with existing global and regional databases.
Key words.—Biodiversity informatics, electronic catalogue, taxonomic discrepancies, Indian fauna
Identification of organisms is fundamental to needed from the international authority. Similarly,
biodiversity studies. Owing to this, the discipline discrepancies in the nomenclature are brought to
of taxonomy, especially scientific nomenclature, the notice of the ICZN and ICBN by scientists,
has gained immense importance. Taxonomy which are later reviewed. This process requires a
provides a vocabulary to discuss the world (Knapp long time and the availability of a large amount of
et al., 2002). Each name is unique and its literature to the scientists discussing nomenclature.
representative organism is precisely described. It is In several cases, especially for taxonomists in
estimated that about 1.8 million species of developing countries, recent taxonomic literature
organisms have been formally named from the including the codes themselves are unavailable.
world (May, 1999) and each is recognized by a Very few libraries around the world have the
unique binomial. More than 2000 new generic financial capacity to carry the full range of
names and 15000 new specific names alone are literature in which systematic results are published
added to the zoological literature every year, and (Agosti and Johnson, 2002). Hence, nomenclature
with such a multiplicity of names, problems are changes are in many cases unavailable or become
bound to occur. International mechanisms such as available much later to the developing country
the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature scientists than to their counterparts in developed
(ICZN, 1999) and the International Code of world. This leads to use of old or outdated
Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) are rulebooks that nomenclature.
govern how organisms are named and they provide On the other hand taxonomic papers by
clear instructions on how to go about the process developing country scientists published in journals
(Knapp et al., 2002). with regional scope, which are not scientifically
International codes of nomenclature require abstracted, remain isolated and unnoticed by the
taxonomic actions to be published and the data wider scientific audience and taxonomic changes
thus made available (Agosti and Johnson, 2002). proposed or used in such papers are often
However, nomenclatural additions or changes have neglected. This obviously leads to many
to be conveyed to the ICZN or ICBN by the discrepancies in the information available,
authors and is usually done when ratification is especially about the current or correct taxonomic
70

2. CHAVAN ET AL. – RESOLVING TAXONOMIC DISCREPANCIES
hierarchy of organisms. It is thus necessary to TAXONOMIC DISCREPANCIES
create a system, which will lead to rapid During this project we have noticed several
identification of taxonomic discrepancies and their taxonomic discrepancies, which need to be
resolution. In addition, a permanent mechanism for resolved by application of nomenclatural rules.
registering and validating scientific names of These discrepancies can be grouped in 3
organisms needs to be created at national as well as categories: hierarchical differences, spelling
global levels. Web-based electronic catalogues can differences and homonymies.
be effective in creating such a central repository of
taxonomic information. In this paper, we Difference in taxonomic hierarchies
demonstrate the use of web-based electronic Several examples were found where the
catalogues (ELECATs) in identifying taxonomic taxonomic hierarchy of organisms followed in
discrepancies in an Indian context. India did not match that used by ITIS. This is
The NCL Center for Biodiversity Informatics especially true in case of some fishes, nematodes
(NCBI) is developing an Electronic Catalogue of and insects. This is the result of differences in
Known Indian Fauna (IndFauna) (NCL, 2005). So taxonomic opinions or the provisional nature of
far it has documented baseline information on certain data in ITIS and a consensus is often
more than 91,000 scientific names of the known difficult. In this case, the information managers
Indian faunal species. The data incorporated in the can display the placement of the taxon according to
database is collected from multiple sources. The alternative schemes. In spite of this option, it is
main focus is on published literature including necessary to conform to the international
research papers, faunas, and monographs as taxonomic opinion, to make the datasets
sources of authentic and reviewed information. For interoperable with those developed in other parts
those taxa especially invertebrates, on which of the world. This is an issue that needs to be
published literature is not readily available, discussed and resolved by taxonomists working in
preserved collections from natural history India. Although making changes in taxonomic
museums, web-based databases and checklists are hierarchy is technically possible in case of the
also being referenced. Thus, when collecting electronic datasets, each change needs to be
information, highest importance is given to validated by the taxonomic community as some
“faunas” and “monographs” followed by taxa may or may not be conforming to that change.
“published research papers”, then “online and Some of the examples where taxonomic hierarchy
offline databases” followed by “region- and taxon- is different are given in Table 1.
specific web sites” followed by “personal As per ITIS and other taxonomic resources
communications with experts”, and finally to “non- Sub Class Elasmobranchii is placed under Class
taxonomic publications”. Chondricthyes, while Systema Naturae 2000
The information is carefully scrutinized for (Brands, S. J., 1989-2005) still recognizes it as
validity and accepted only if it is from reputed Class Elasmobranchii.
taxonomic institutions or experts. For each species,
the taxonomic hierarchy used by Indian faunas is Differences in spelling
crosschecked diligently with that used in global The most common problem faced while
taxonomic inventories such as Integrated digitizing the data was different spellings of
Taxonomic Information System (ITIS, 2005), organisms’ names. Some examples are given in
Species2000 (Species2000, 2005), Catalogue of Table 2.
Life: 2005 Annual Checklist (Bisby et al., 2005), Order Cheilostomata as per ITIS is named
Index to Organism Names (ION, 2005), European differently as Order Cheilostomida by ERMS
Register for Marine Species (ERMS, 2005), (2005). Even the hierarchy under this order is not
Systema Naturae 2000 (Brands, S. J., 1989-2005) same for many species given in these two
etc. In case of any problems regarding taxonomic databases.
placement of the species concerned taxonomy
experts are contacted and as per their suggestions
the species are being entered in the database.
71

3. CHAVAN ET AL. – RESOLVING TAXONOMIC DISCREPANCIES
Table 1. Difference in hierarchies used in various sources.
Sr. Taxon or Scientific name Indian sources Integrated Taxonomic
No. Information System
1 Appendicularia histnae Kingdom: Animalia Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum:Urochordata Subphylum:Tunicata
Class: Larvacea Class: Appendicularia
Order: Oikopleurida Order: Copelata
Family: Appendicularidae ITIS does not include genus
Genus: Appendicularia Appendicularia
Species: histnae
(Das, 2003; Dhandapani, 1977)
2 Pillaia indica
Pillaia khajuriai Kingdom: Animalia Kingdom: Animalia
Genus Pillaia is placed Phylum: Chordata Phylum: Chordata
under different order of Class: Actinopterygii Class: Actinopterygii
Class Actinopterygii Order: Perciformes Order: Synbranchiformes
Family: Chaudhuriidae Family: Chaudhuriidae
Genus Pillaia Genus Pillaia
(Rao, 2000)
3 Zenarchopterus ectuntio
and Kingdom: Animalia Kingdom: Animalia
Zenarchopterus striga Phylum: Chordata Phylum: Chordata
Genus Zenarchopterus is Class: Actinopterygii Class: Actinopterygii
placed under different Order: Atheriniformes Order: Beloniformes
order Sub Order: Exocoetoidei Sub Order: Belonoidei
Family: Hemiramphidae Family: Hemiramphidae
Genus Zenarchopterus Genus Zenarchopterus
(Rao, 2000)
In some cases these were misspellings, Homonyms
especially typographical errors. However, to A few homonyms were identified in the
follow the taxonomic norms, each misspelling cataloguing process. For instance, genus
needs to be reported along with the valid scientific Chaunoproctus and genus Microcosmus were
name for avoiding future problems. Usually such observed to be used in different regions for
wrongly spelled scientific names are reported as different taxa. This is a direct contradiction to
synonyms with a prefix “sic” as per the nomenclature rules. Closer scrutiny of literature
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and taxonomic opinion revealed interesting facts of
(ICZN, 1999). In some case the difference in uses of these two genera. According to ITIS (ITIS,
spelling was due to different taxonomic opinions, 2005) and the Taxonomicon of Systema Naturae
and choosing which to use requires discussion with 2000 (Brands, S. J., 1989-2005), genus
taxonomists. For example the Blue Whale Shark Chaunoproctus Bonaparte, 1850 (Aves:
Rhincodon which is spelled Rhiniodon (Talwar and Passeriformes: Fringillidae) is a bird,
Kacker, 1984; Talwar, P. K., 1991) in Indian Chaunoproctus ferreorostris Vigors, 1829, which
literature. ITIS shows Rhiniodon as a synonym of is now extinct as per the IUCN Redlist of
Rhincodon that was suppressed by a ruling (ITIS, Threatened Species (IUCN, 2005).
2005).
72

4. CHAVAN ET AL. – RESOLVING TAXONOMIC DISCREPANCIES
Table 2. Misspellings and difference in hierarchies in various sources.
Sr. No. Scientific names as per:
Integrated Taxonomic Information Indian sources
System
1
Kingdom: Animalia Corynosoma streemosum
Phylum: Acanthocephala (Bhattacharya, 1998)
Class: Palaeacanthocephala
Order: Polymorphida
Family: Polymorphidae
Genus: Corynosoma
Species: strumosum
2
Kingdom: Animalia Class Mammalia
Phylum: Chordata Order: Cetacea
Class: Mammalia Genus: Psudorca
Order: Cetacea Species: crassidens
Family: Delphinidae (Agarwal V.C., 1998)
Genus: Pseudorca
Species: crassidens
3
Genus: Amblypharyngodon Phylum: Chordata
Genus previously present in ITIS but not Class: Actinopterygii
found as on date. Family: Cyprinidae
Genus: Ambylopharyngodon
(Aditya and Raut, 2001)
4
Kingdom: Animalia Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata Phylum: Chordata
Class: Actinopterygii Class: Actinopterygii
Order: Beloniformes Order: Cyprinodontiformes
Family: Adrianichthyidae Family: Cyprinodontidae
Genus: Oryzias Genus: Oryzias
Species: melastigma Species: melanostigma
[Family: Cyprinodontidae is present under (Nandi, 1993)
Order Cyprinodontiformes]
73

5. CHAVAN ET AL. – RESOLVING TAXONOMIC DISCREPANCIES
Chaunoproctus Pearce, 1906 (Arachnida: today the carabid species is cited as
Acari) is a group of orabitid mites as per the Microcosmodes flavopilosus. Thus, Indian
Indian Faunas (Sanyal and Bhaduri, 1986; records (Saha, et al., 1992) which show presence
Sanyal et al., 2003). The type species designated of Microcosmus instead of Microschemus needs
for this genus is Chaunoproctus cancellatus to be updated.
Pearce, 1906 collected from Sikkim, India. Polypodium hydriforme, which is under
Interestingly, genus Zetorchella Berlese, 1916 phylum Cnidaria, is still considered as a valid
reported from Somaliland, and genus Callopia scientific name under Phylum Pisces along with
Balogh, 1958 reported from Angola, Africa were Phylum Cnidaria by ION (2005). Genus Doto
regarded as synonyms of the genus described by Oken, 1815 is considered valid for
Chaunoproctus by Balogh (1965) (Sanyal et.al., phylum Mollusca while; U.S. National Museum
2003). Later in 1972 he again considered them of Natural History database (2005) displays it
as distinct genera. Recently, J. Balogh and P. under phylum Arthropoda as well as phylum
Balogh (1992) again concluded that genus Mollusca. In these cases it is really difficult to
Zetorchella and genus Caloppia as synonyms of place the organism in a specific hierarchy.
genus Chaunoproctus. In 2003, Sanyal and team Another example is of the Genus Cyaniris,
described three new species Chaunoproctus which is present under family Lycaenidae, order
orientalis, C. sisiri, and C. amarpurensis Lepidoptera, class Insecta (Bingham, 1907). The
belonging to genus Chaunoproctus from same genus name Cyaniris is also given to
Tripura, India (Sanyal et.al., 2003). Genus insects belonging to family Chrysomelidae,
Chaunoproctus is also reported from other parts order Coleoptera, class Insecta as per the
of the globe as valid genus of Order Acari database of the holotype collections from India
(Mahunka, S., 1987). As per the International present in the Belgium Museum (Drugmand,
Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 2002). The genus is not included in the ITIS
1999), generic name Chaunoproctus Pearce, database while the other web sites and literature
1906 (Arachnida: Acari) can be a junior sources shows presence of genus Cyaniris in
homonym of Chaunoproctus Bonaparte, 1850 order Lepidoptera.
(Aves: Passeriformes: Fringillidae). While checking hierarchy for a species,
Similarly the generic name namely Idia pristis, which is placed under class
Microcosmus Heller, 1878 (ITIS, 2005) [1877 Hydrozoa (Ritchie, 1910), surprisingly we came
(ION, 2005)] (Chordata, Ascidiacea) is a across genus Idia which is also present under
homonym of Microcosmus Chaudoir 1879 class Insecta, order Lepidoptera, family
(Insecta, Coleoptera, Carabidae) (Saha, et.al., Noctuidae as per the checklist of Noctuoidea of
1992). Both names are in use and refer, Ontario present on the website hosted by
respectively, to Ascidiacea as per the ITIS Canadian Biodiversity Information Facility
(2005) and ION (2005), and for a beetle as per (Troubridge and Lafontaine, 2003). There is also
Indian literature (Saha, et al., 1992). Opinion no ready reference available for this generic
was sought from carabidologists and finally designation anywhere.
Wolfgang Schiller resolved this issue.
Microcosmus has been described by Chaudoir DISCUSSION
(Chaudoir, 1879) under tribe Panageini within A consensus on these issues is a matter of
family Carabidae (Order Coleoptera: Class taxonomic discussion. They need to be resolved
Insecta: Phylum Arthropoda) for the species M. by using nomenclatural rules, which requires
flavopilosus. However, Heller already further detailed research. However these
designated the same genus Microcosmus in 1877 examples effectively demonstrate the potential
under family Pyuridae, (Class Ascidiacea, of electronic catalogues (ELECATs) in bringing
Phylum Chordata). Hence, Emberik Strand issues or discrepancies to the attention of the
proposed new name Microcosmodes (Strand, taxonomic community, starting a dialogue
1936). Later in 1940, Andrewes replaced it to between taxonomists across the globe and
genus Microschemus (Yves, B., 2002). So until identifying issues of common concern. In order
74

6. CHAVAN ET AL. – RESOLVING TAXONOMIC DISCREPANCIES
to notice such discrepancies and resolve them has already taken a step towards registering of
quickly, it is essential that a wrapper be names (Anonymous, 2002) by requiring the
developed which traverses through various authors of papers featuring new taxonomy to file
electronic catalogues searching for taxonomic the information with a recognized institute such
anomalies. This calls for increasing as Linnaean Society of London. Central registry
collaboration among the various ELECATs. will be a repository of scientific name
The information available so far on the information or an index for scientific names in
Internet is largely limited to names and citations. use, along with their history. It will be a
It is understood, however, that taxonomic dynamic register for proposed scientific names
literature generated out of two centuries’ work (which will be provisionally accepted, noted),
cannot be put on the Internet overnight. It is a which can later be added to the repository after
formidable taxk, yet one that must be annotation. These will serve as references for
accomplished as promptly as possible. With the scientists describing new taxa to check if the
growing use of information and communication name has been used before, and in which
technologies in biodiversity research, it should context. This will eliminate generation of
be possible to make the taxonomic literature homonyms. It can also provide a point of
itself available on the Internet, which can be “normalization” for data.
used for checking inconsistency in taxonomy, ELECATs offer an effective method of
used worldwide. Although taxonomists from creating unique electronic registers. Owing to
around the world have been dealing with these the rules of acceptance of scientific names,
discrepancies, it is time-consuming and tedious names cannot be registered as valid before the
to identify, check, and correct them using the publication of taxon description in a journal. To
traditional media such as published literature. solve this, a precedent can be set that in case of
Modern information and communications tools each new description, together with the type
can be of immense help in identifying taxonomic specimen deposition number, a provisional
discrepancies quickly and resolving them in a registration number in the global, regional or
collaborative manner leading to globally national web based ELECAT should be quoted.
acceptable standardized inventories. With the There will be two-way information exchanges
use of the Internet, there can be a truly two-way with other ELECATs. The registry will compare
exchange of information between taxonomists between ELECATs information, find out any
from developed and developing countries. points of mismatches or conflicting data, and
Active collaboration and commitment of also pick up new information automatically from
taxonomists and information managers are the ELECATs. Using this, a single number
required to work towards the goal of developing reference system for each scientific name can be
information systems to bring uniformity and developed. The central registry can provide a
precision to taxonomic inventories across the minimum standard and starting point for use in
world. Many of the discrepancies arise because other databases.
taxonomists are unable or find it difficult to The Global Biodiversity Information
check up on taxon names especially for taxa Facility (GBIF), together with the Taxonomic
outside their field of expertise. Database Working Group (TDWG), is currently
Hence, to build up easy communication seeking requirements for Globally Unique
pathways and reduce the time input, it would be Identifiers (GUIDs) for biodiversity informatics
extremely helpful to have a web-based central and to establish infrastructure to support their
registry system for taxonomic names. Checking use. GUIDs once developed can overcome most
of names being used in publication with the of the current problems, such as (a)
central registry would definitely eliminate many identification of same data records served from
of the commonly encountered discrepancies multiple locations, (b) referring to data from
described above. Thorne (2003) also proposed outside network, irrespective of frequent change
the need for registration of new taxa names in a of URLs, and (c) referring to taxon concepts in
central registry of names. The journal Nature reliable and consistent way. Page (2005)
75

7. CHAVAN ET AL. – RESOLVING TAXONOMIC DISCREPANCIES
suggests a system of Life Science Identifiers taxonomist’s time would be saved by having a
(LSIDs) as unique numerical identifiers for tool that can readily compare data with that in
scientific names and ITIS currently employs a the central file (such as ITIS’ Taxcompare tool).
system of unique Taxonomic Serial Numbers The ability to check quickly for homonymies
(TSNs). Databases could be mapped to TSNs or will also save time. In addition, development
some parallel concept. and use of national ELECATs should be
Many organizations are working towards encouraged to collate information at the national
building up registers of published scientific levels and make it available to the global users.
names of taxa such as for beetles (Vratislav, This is especially important, as these national
2005). Plant names can be checked using registers will be able to easily access locally
International Plant Names Index (IPNI, 2005). available primary taxonomic information.
Index to Organism Names (ION, 2005) database It is also necessary to track changes in
can be used to check zoological names. The species concepts over time. ITIS has developed
most holistic efforts are those of Species2000 a capability for change tracking, but has not yet
and ITIS Catalogue of Life (Leslie, 2005) and implemented it. Availability of specimens,
GBIF, which aim to create an index of at least images, protologues, and classifying characters
95% of the known species by 2011 (GBIF, in use in different countries, comparing between
2005). This is a major step towards developing a specimens of a species with wide distribution-
central register of names, and increasing transcending political boundaries and building
collaborations between similar efforts biogeographic distribution maps, language
worldwide should shorten the time required. To barrier - translating Latin diagnoses, and picture
complement these initiatives, International data are some of the capabilities required to
Commission of Zoological Nomenclature ensure accurate results in biodiversity research
announced its intention of setting up of web- projects.
based, open access mandatory registration These advances suggest that, in the future,
system called “ZooBank” to register descriptions the taxonomic discipline will make broad use of
of all new taxa and nomenclatural acts in animal the web-based information and benefit greatly
taxonomy. (Polaszek et al., 2005). While similar from it. Therefore, it is crucial at the moment to
mandatory registration mechanism exists for build up or improve the collaborative activities
descriptions of new bacteria, it needs to be among domain experts, information managers
extended for other kingdoms viz., Plantae, and users of taxonomic information. This would
Archaea, Chromista, Fungi, Protozoa, and ultimately help in strengthening the biodiversity
Viruses. Similar to “ZooBank” these mandatory research necessary for conservation and
registration mechanisms would facilitate management of global natural resources.
retrospective registration of existing names, and
of all nomenclatural acts in respective kingdom. CONCLUSIONS
This can be achieved through active linkages The discrepancies found while developing
and collaborations with existing projects, rather IndFauna, an electronic catalogue of known
than replacing them. Indian fauna and comparing it with existing
In addition, links to other databases like databases can help to solve several issues like
image, DNA sequences, protein sequences, lipid taxonomic ambiguities, inadequate
sequences, and collection locality maps, etc. will documentation and incorrect placements of
be a major step forward. Further, linking valid species. Development of electronic catalogues of
scientific names to collection accession numbers names of known organisms (ELECATs) will
of type specimens will help scientists track all help in pointing out these issues. International
collections quickly and know where they are organizations like GBIF are trying to make all
deposited. Applications could be built such as biodiversity data accessible to the largest
those on the ITIS Canada website or uBio1 that possible section of the human population.
display multiple classifications. In addition, a Recently GBIF, Species 2000, ITIS and uBio
(GBIF, 2005) have decided to cooperate on
1
http://www.ubio.org/.
76

8. CHAVAN ET AL. – RESOLVING TAXONOMIC DISCREPANCIES
compiling and utilizing taxonomic information Drugmand D. 2002. Entomological and
resources. National and regional resources such Arachnological Collections. Royal Belgian
as IndFauna, after solving the types of Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels.3
discrepancies described here, can make valuable European Register for Marine Species (ERMS).
2005. European Register for Marine Species
contributions to preparing of global taxonomic
(ERMS2), Flanders Marine Institute, Oostende,
databases and standards. Belgium.4
Global Biodiversity Informatics Facility (GBIF).
REFERENCES 2005. GBIF Strategic Plan 2007-2011, version
Aditya, G. and S. K. Raut. 2001. Food of the snail, 6.0 (1 September 2005). Global Biodiversity
Pomacea bridgesi, introduced in India. Current Informatics Facility, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Science. 80:919-920. International Commission on Zoological
Agarwal, V. C. 1998. Mammalia. Pages 459-469 in Nomenclature (ICZN). 1999. International Code
J.R.B. Alfred, A. K. Das and A. K. Sanyal, of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th Edition.
editors. Faunal Diversity in India. Zoological International Commission on Zoological
Survey of India, Kolkata, India. Nomenclature, London, U.K.5
Agosti, D. and N. F. Johnson. 2002. Taxonomists Index to Organism Names (ION). 2005. BIOSIS
need better access to published data. Nature Index to Organism Names. Thomson BIOSIS
417:222. Ltd., York Science Park, York, U.K.6
Anonymous. 2002. Genomics and taxonomy for all. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS).
Nature 417:573. 2005. Integrated Taxonomic Information
Bhattacharya, S. B. 1998. Acanthocephala. Pages 93- System, Washington, D.C.7
98 in J.R.B. Alfred, A. K. Das and A. K. Sanyal, International Plant Names Index (IPNI). 2005.
editors. Faunal Diversity in India. Zoological International Plant Names Index. Plant Names
Survey of India, Kolkata, India. Project.8
Bingham, C. T. 1907. The Fauna of British India International Union for Conservation of Nature and
including Ceylon and Burma. Butterflies Vol. II, Natural Resources (IUCN). 2005. IUCN Redlist
Taylor and Francis, London. of threatened species. International Union for
Bisby, F. A., Ruggiero, M. A., Wilson, K. L., Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,
Cachuela-Palacio, M., Kimani, S. W., Roskov, Cambridge, U.K.9
Y. R., Soulier-Perkins A. and J van Hertum, Kalavati, C. 1998. Mesozoa. Pages 21-26 in J. R. B.
editors. 2005. Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Alfred, A. K. Das and A. K. Sanyal, editors.
Life: 2005 Annual Checklist. Species 2000, Faunal Diversity in India. Zoological Survey of
Reading, United Kingdom. India, Kolkata, India.
Brands, S. J. (comp.). 1989-2005. Systema Naturae Knapp, S., Bateman, R. M., Chalmers, N. R.,
2000. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.2 Humphries, C. J., Rainbow, P. S., Smith, A. B.,
Chaudoir, M. de. 1879. Essai monographique sur les Taylor, P. D., Vane-Wright, R. I. and
Panageides. Annales de la Société M. Wilkinson. 2002. Taxonomy needs evolution,
Entomologique de Belgique 21: 83-186 (pp. 83- not revolution. Nature 419:59
84 published in 1878). Leslie, M. 2005. Species master list hits milestone.
Das, A. 2003. A Catalogue of New Taxa Described Science 308:609.
by the Scientists of the Zoological Survey of Mahunka, S. 1987. Oribatids from Africa: Acari
India during 1916-1991. Records of the Oribatida V. Folia Entomologica Hungarica
Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper 48:105-128.
208:1-530. May, R. M. 1999. The dimensions of life of earth.
Dhandapani, P. 1977. Descriptions of two new Pages 30-45 in P. H. Raven and T. Williams,
species of larvaceae with a list of other species editors. Nature and Human Society, the Quest
collected from the Bay of Bengal. Pages 60-64 in
Proceedings of the Symposium on Warm Water
Zooplankton. UNESCO/NIO (Symp. National 3
Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa, http://www.natuurwentenschappen.be/collections/entomo/
types_form/Chrysomelinae_Clythrinae.htm.
India. 4
http://www.marbef.org/data/erms.php.
5
http://www.iczn.org/iczn.htm.
6
http://www.biosis.org.uk/ion/search.htm.
7
http://www.itis.usda.gov/.
8
http://www.ipni.org/.
2 9
http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/. http://www.redlist.org/search/details.php?species=4591.
77

9. CHAVAN ET AL. – RESOLVING TAXONOMIC DISCREPANCIES
for Sustainable Worlds. National Academy Saha S. K., Mukherjee A. K. and T. Sengupta. 1992.
Press, Washington, D.C.. Carabidae (Coleoptera: Insecta) of Calcutta.
Nandi, N. C., S. R. Das, Bhuinya and J. M. Dasgupta. Records of Zoological Survey of India,
1993. Wetland Faunal Resources of West Occasional Paper 144:1-63.
Bengal, I., North and South 24-Parganas Sanyal, A. K. and A. K. Bhaduri. 1986. Check list of
Districts. Records of the Zoological Survey of oribatid mites (Acari) of India. Records of The
India, Occasional Paper 150:1-50. Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper
National Chemical Laboratory (NCL). 2005. 83:1-79.
Electronic Catalogue of Known Indian Fauna. Sanyal, A. K. Saha, S. and S. Chakraborty. 2003.
National Chemical Laboratory, Pune, India.10 Three new species of the genus Chaunoproctus
Page, R. D. M. 2005. A Taxonomic Search Engine: Pearce (1906) (Acarina: Oribatida) from India.
Federating taxonomic databases using web Records of the Zoological Survey of India,
services. BMC Bioinformatics 6:48. 101:57-66.
Polaszek, A., D. Agosti, M. Alonso-Zarazaga, G. Species2000. 2005. Species2000, School of Plant
Beccaloni, P. de P. Bjørn, P. Bouchet, D. J. Sciences, The University of Reading, Reading,
Brothers, E. N. Earl, H. C. J. Godfray, N. F. United Kingdom.11
Johnson, F.-T. Krell, D. Lipscomb, C. H. C. Strand, E. 1936. Miscellanea nomenclatorica
Lyal, G. M. Mace, S. Mawatari, S. E. Miller, A. Zoologica et palaeontologica IX. Folia Zoologica
Minelli, S. Morris, P. K. L. Ng, D. J. Patterson, Hydrobiologia Riga 9:167-170.
R. L. Pyle, N. Robinson, L. Rogo, J. Taverne, F. Talwar, P. K. 1991. Pisces. Pages 1-143 in Faunal
C. Thompson, J. Tol, Q. D. Wheeler and E. O. Resources of Ganga. Zoological Survey of India,
Wilson. 2005. A Universal Register for animal Kolkata, India.
names. Nature 437:477. Talwar, P. K. and R. K. Kacker 1984. Commercial
Rao, D.V., Kamla Devi and P.T.Rajan.. 2000. An Sea Fishes of India. Zoological Survey of India,
account of Ichthyofauna of Andaman and Kolkata, India.
Nicobar islands, Bay of Bengal. Records of the Thorne J.. 2003. Zoological record and registration of
Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper new names in zoology. Bulletin of Zoological
178:1-434. Nomenclature 60:7-11.
Ritchie, J. 1910. The Hydroids of the Indian
Museum. I. The deep sea collection. Records of
the Indian Museum V:1-30.
10 11
http://www.ncbi.org.in/. http://www.sp2000.org/.
78