Content uploaded by Thomas Borsch
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas Borsch on Dec 06, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
World Flora Online: Placing taxonomists at the heart of a definitive
and comprehensive global resource on the world’s plants
Thomas Borsch,
1
Walter Berendsohn,
1
Eduardo Dalcin,
2
Maïté Delmas,
3
Sebsebe Demissew,
4
Alan Elliott,
5
Peter Fritsch,
6
Anne Fuchs,
7
Dmitry Geltman,
8
Adil Güner,
9
Thomas Haevermans,
10
Sandra Knapp,
11
M. Marianne le Roux,
12,13
Pierre-André Loizeau,
14
Chuck Miller,
15
James Miller,
15
Joseph T. Miller,
16
Raoul Palese,
14,16
Alan Paton,
17
John Parnell,
18
Colin Pendry,
5
Hai-Ning Qin,
19
Victoria Sosa,
20
Marc Sosef,
21
Eckhard von Raab-Straube,
1
Fhatani Ranwashe,
22
Lauren Raz,
23
Rashad Salimov,
24
Erik Smets,
25
Barbara Thiers,
26
Wayt Thomas,
26
Melissa Tulig,
26
William Ulate,
15,16
Visotheary Ung,
10
Mark Watson,
5
Peter Wyse Jackson
15,16
& Nelson Zamora
27
1Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin Luise Str. 6–8, 14165 Berlin, Germany
2Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rua Pacheco Leão 915, SI 203, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3Direction des relations européennes et internationales, Direction des relations avec les Outremer, Muséum national d’histoire
naturelle, CP24-57, Rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France
4National Herbarium, Department of Plant Biology and Biodiversity Management, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
5Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20a Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, U.K.
6Botanical Research Institute of Texas, 1700 University Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76107-3400, U.S.A.
7Australian Biological Resources Study, Australian Government, Department of Environment and Energy, John Gorton Building, King
Edward Terrace, Australia
8Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professora Popova str. 2, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation
197376
9Nezahat Gökyigit Botanik Bahcesi, Istanbul, Turkey
10 Institut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité ISYEB, Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique, Sorbonne Université, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Université des Antilles, CP 50, 45 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris,
France
11 Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K.
12 Biosystematics Research and Biodiversity Collections Division, Pretoria National Herbarium, South African National Biodiversity
Institute, Private Bag X101, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
13 Department of Botany and Plant Biotechnology, University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, Auckland Park 2006, South Africa
14 Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève, Ch. de l’Impératrice 1/C.P. 71, 1292 Chambésy, Genève, Switzerland
15 Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Blvd., Saint Louis, Missouri 63110-2226, U.S.A.
16 Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
17 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, U.K.
18 Herbarium, Botany Department &Trinity Centre for Biodiversity Research, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2, Ireland
19 Beijing Institute of Botany, 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan, Beijing 100093, China
20 Instituto de Ecología AC, Carretera antigua a Coatepec 351, 91073 Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico
21 Meise Botanic Garden, Nieuwelaan 38, 1860 Meise, Belgium
22 Biodiversity Information and Policy Advice Division, Kirstenbosch Research Centre, South African National Biodiversity Institute,
Private Bag X7, Claremont 7735, Cape Town, South Africa
23 Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, D.C., Colombia
24 Institute of Botany Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, Badamdar Highway 40, AZ1004, Baku, Azerbaijan
25 Naturalis Biodiversity Center, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
26 The New York Botanical Garden, 2900 Southern Blvd., Bronx, New York 10458-5126, U.S.A.
27 Herbario Nacional de Costa Rica, Departamento de Historia Natural, Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, Apdo. 749-1000, San José,
Costa Rica
Address for correspondence: Thomas Borsch,t.borsch@bgbm.org
DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12373
Article history: Received: 19 Nov 2019 | returned for (first) revision: 31 Jan 2020 | (last) revision received: 17 Sep 2020 | accepted: 21 Sep 2020
Associate Editor: Dirk C. Albach | © 2020 The Authors.
TAXON published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Association for Plant Taxonomy.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Version of Record 1
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
Abstract It is time to synthesize the knowledge that has been generated through more than 260 years of botanical exploration, tax-
onomic and, more recently, phylogenetic research throughout the world. The adoption of an updated Global Strategy for Plant Con-
servation (GSPC) in 2011 provided the essential impetus for the development of the World Flora Online (WFO) project. The project
represents an international, coordinated effort by the botanical community to achieve GSPC Target 1, an electronic Flora of all plants.
It will be a first-ever unique and authoritative global source of information on the world’s plant diversity, compiled, curated, moder-
ated and updated by an expert and specialist-based community (Taxonomic Expert Networks –“TENs”–covering a taxonomic group
such as family or order) and actively managed by those who have compiled and contributed the data it includes. Full credit and
acknowledgement will be given to the original sources, allowing users to refer back to the primary data. A strength of the project
is that it is led and endorsed by a global consortium of more than 40 leading botanical institutions worldwide. A first milestone for
producing the World Flora Online is to be accomplished by the end of 2020, but the WFO Consortium is committed to continuing
the WFO programme beyond 2020 when it will develop its full impact as the authoritative source of information on the world’s plant
biodiversity.
Keywords biodiversity assessment; global species list; Global Strategy for Plant Conservation; science policy; taxonomy; vascular
plants
■INTRODUCTION
There are an estimated 400,000 species of vascular plants
and bryophytes on Earth, with perhaps an additional 10% yet
to be discovered. The majority are flowering plants (calcula-
tions centre around 352,000 to 370,000 accepted species; Paton
& al., 2008; Nic Lughadha & al., 2016), whereas gymnosperms
amount to 1090 species (WCSP, 2016), and there are roughly
13,300 species of ferns and fern allies (Hassler, 2020), 12,800
mosses (Crosby & al., 2000), and 7500 hornworts and liver-
worts (Söderström & al., 2016). These plants constitute the
basis of most terrestrial ecosystems and hold answers to many
of the world’s health, social, environmental and economic
problems. The completion of a full inventory of plant life is
vital for protecting threatened species of all kinds of organ-
isms and realizing their full potential to support human needs
before many of them become extinct.
The WFO portal is a freely available online source of rig-
orously assembled scientific verified biodiversity data on
bryophytes, pteridophytes, gymnosperms and angiosperms.
Backed by the international taxonomic community, the WFO
provides two fundamental data resources critical for underpin-
ning botanical research, plant conservation and the sustainable
use of plant resources. The first resource is a curated and upda-
table synonymized checklist of all plant species as well as
other taxon categories (families, genera, subspecies, etc.) –
the Taxonomic Backbone of the WFO. The Taxonomic Back-
bone aims to provide the most up to date source of scientific
plant names and their synonyms: a consensus classification
of the world’s plants. Comprehensiveness (including all effec-
tively published names), and particularly the active curation
by taxonomic experts (TENs –Taxonomic Expert Networks)
will turn this into a unique, dynamic, living resource. Content,
the second essential resource, is a managed aggregation of
published floristic and monographic data with descriptions,
distributions, images, etc. linked to names in the Taxonomic
Backbone. Content Providers contribute data from their pub-
lications (print or electronic), which are displayed in taxon
pages alongside other contributions, with credits linking to
sources of these data. Aimed primarily at the conservation
community and applied users of biodiversity data, the WFO
online portal will be the first comprehensive global resource
for the discovery of information on plant species, their names,
descriptions, distributions and conservation status.
A globally consistent and reliable architecture for plant tax-
onomy is a fundamental requirement for many applications,
amongst which conservation is foremost. Biodiversity monitor-
ing and conservation status assessments are based on a con-
sensus classification and accurate information on geographic
ranges, often in the form of maps that present the complete
range of species occurrence across countries. International col-
laborative approaches such as the Global Biodiversity Infor-
mation Facility (GBIF, https://www.gbif.org) are increasingly
facilitating access to specimen and observational data. These
enable broad-scale biodiversity analyses and as such depend
on the linkage of these data to an authoritative taxonomic and
floristic source of information on all known plant taxa. At pre-
sent the IUCN Global Red List (IUCN, 2019), complemented
by the ThreatSearch database (BGCI, 2019), contains over
300,000 conservation assessments representing more than
180,000 plant taxa, and merely uses the names as published
in the original assessments, whether accepted or synonyms.
Such assessments will therefore benefit greatly from a globally
consistent taxonomic source that links synonyms to curren-
tly accepted names. The need for a globally consistent name
architecture to correctly link other plant-related data (e.g.,
DNA sequence data, secondary compounds, medicinal and
nutritional uses, common names, invasive potential, occurrence
in ex situ collections, etc.) that are becoming increasingly
abundant and available through databases such as GenBank/
ENA, iBOL, Plant Trait Database TRY, and the Catalogue
of Life (CoL) is obvious. The same applies to policy docu-
ments, legislation and conservation, as highlighted in a num-
ber of recent papers (Patterson & al., 2010, 2016; Garnett &
Christidis, 2017; Jackson & al, 2017; Thomson & al., 2018).
The need for a unique global list of all accepted species as a
basis for managing biodiversity in an era of accelerating
global change was further advocated recently (Garnett & al.,
2020). The authors thereby envision a transparent science-
based and content-driven governance framework, with different
2Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
groups of organisms being managed by the respective scien-
tific communities as most promising to become universally
adopted. The World Flora Online provides this for land
plants.
The WFO Consortium also recognizes that the WFO por-
tal has a wider application and that the inclusion of distribu-
tion maps and conservation status of species in WFO will
directly contribute to the achievement of the Aichi Targets
(Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018). For example,
Target 12: to prevent the extinction of known threatened spe-
cies, particularly of those most in decline, by 2020; and Target
9: to identify and prioritize invasive alien species with the goal
of controlling or eradicating them are directly related to accu-
rate knowledge about distribution. The importance of plants to
support and sustain humanity is also recognized in Target
15 (Life on Land) and Target 14 (Life below Water) of the
U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (Sharrock & Wyse
Jackson, 2017).
Responding to the many uses envisaged for the WFO
requires an up-to-date taxonomic backbone that must be man-
aged as a dynamic information source to mirror the best avail-
able knowledge. The classification of plants is currently in
transition from a classification based mainly on comparative
morphology (morpho-species) to the implementation of the
results of phylogenetic analyses and evolution-based taxon
circumscriptions (Borsch & al., 2015). While a more-or-less
stable classification has been achieved at the level of orders
and families (e.g., APG IV, 2016), advances in knowledge
have led to significant changes in generic and suprageneric
classifications (e.g., Caryophyllales, Hernández-Ledesma &
al., 2015 + online and updated by Caryophyllales Network
2015−; LPWG, 2017). Changes at the generic level affect
the naming of organisms following the rules of nomenclature
(Turland & al., 2018), and thus directly influence the linking
of distribution, molecular or morphological data to scientific
names. This is also true for ongoing changes in species cir-
cumscriptions (hence a change in a taxon concept) that occur
as a consequence of new collections, new information sources
and the application of new analytical methods in systematics.
In addition, significant numbers of species are still being
discovered and described as new to science every year (on
average 2000 species of vascular plants per year in the last
two decades; Christenhusz & Byng, 2016), so there is a con-
stant need for the incorporation of taxa into the Taxonomic
Backbone. Verification of names and identities of species by
taxonomic experts has been shown to have a significant effect
on the estimation of biodiversity overall (Cardoso & al.,
2017), making it imperative that the global taxonomic com-
munity is involved in such efforts. To that end, WFO foments
the establishment of Taxonomic Expert Networks. WFO is
developing workflows to bring in to the Taxonomic Backbone
newly published names from nomenclators (e.g., International
Plant Names Index; IPNI, 2020), and alerting TENs to their
inclusion. Conversely, new names brought into the Taxonomic
Backbone from TEN datasets will be passed on to nomen-
clators (see later discussion on Nepenthaceae).
The WFO is not a research project as such but represents a
collaborative fresh start by the phytotaxonomic community. It
will provide a platform and workflows (including software
tools) that allow the assembly of information about the world’s
plants within a single global resource. Therefore, it is important
to build upon existing sources and engage the scientific com-
munity, taking great care to ensure proper recognition of authors
and contributors. It is also important to note that this engage-
ment is now greatly facilitated by digital resources such as
JSTOR Global Plants (http://plants.jstor.org), which, although
not yet complete, provides access to a large number of nomen-
clatural types and type-related material (as of July 2019 over
2 million digitized historical specimens of vascular plants and
bryophytes are included in JSTOR Global Plants, relating to
roughly 1 million names and 350,000 accepted species). Other
examples are the Biodiversity Heritage Library (Gwinn &
Rinaldo, 2009) and the Global Biodiversity Information Facil-
ity (GBIF, 2018), which provide free and open access to enor-
mous digital resources in taxonomic literature, and specimen
and observation records, respectively.
As a collaborative enterprise of many institutions and indi-
viduals, the WFO can, however, foster the implementation and
achievement of data standards and other mechanisms that sup-
port interoperability and reusability of research data (Hobern
& al., 2019) following the FAIR principles (Wilkinson & al.,
2016). With respect to legal restrictions, the core taxonomic
data (names and their classification, i.e., the Taxonomic Back-
bone) are made available under a Creative Commons CC Zero
Waiver (“No Rights Reserved”) to be reusable without restric-
tions. For content data (taxon descriptions, etc.), the contributor
can determine what Creative Commons license applies to the
data they contribute. WFO recommends use of CC-0 or the
CC-BY Attribution license (see Hagedorn & al., 2011 for a dis-
cussion of Creative Commons licensing).
The purpose of this paper is to explain the approach taken
by the WFO programme and to show where it stands, as well
as to discuss its content. Building upon a wealth of already
available taxonomic sources and Taxonomic Expert Networks
that adopt the curation of the consensus classification for
entire families or orders, WFO will present the most up-to-date
taxonomic knowledge ensuring global coverage. We therefore
envisage the WFO programme as a great opportunity for the
global taxonomic community to align, to get involved and to
become more visible as a player in joint efforts towards solving
future challenges of biodiversity conservation and sustainable
development.
■HISTORY OF THE WORLD FLORA ONLINE
In 2002, the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation
(GSPC) of the United Nations’Convention on Biological Diver-
sity (CBD) included as its first target the need for “awidely
accessible working list of all known plant species”. The pub-
lication of The Plant List, version 1.0 (www.theplantlist.org)
in 2010 was a major step towards achieving this goal. In the
Version of Record 3
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
2011–2020 framework of the GSPC (Convention on Biolog-
ical Diversity, 2012) all targets were updated, and Target
1 was extended to “An online flora of all known plants”,a
comprehensive compendium of the world’splantspecies
freely available on the Internet by 2020. With this background
in mind, in 2012, representatives of members of the Global
Partnership for Plant Conservation (GPPC) took the initiative
to meet and discuss how to achieve this highly ambitious goal
(Wyse Jackson, 2013). The meeting resulted in a proposed
outline of the scope and content of a World Flora Online as
well as a decision to constitute an international consortium
of institutions and organizations to collaborate on delivering
the platform and building the content. The WFO project was
welcomed by the CBD’s Conference of the Parties at its 11th
meeting in 2012 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014:
245) as a collaborative response to GSPC Target 1 (Wyse
Jackson & Miller, 2015). The WFO Consortium, as of July
2020, comprises 43 partner institutions and organizations in
26 countries (www.worldfloraonline.org) and welcomes the
participation of others.
Building upon the GSPC 2010 goal, WFO has constantly
been working on updating and maintaining the Taxonomic
Backbone. With respect to Content, large numbers of descrip-
tions are already available in Floras and monographs pub-
lished in different languages, and considerable progress is
being made in digitizing these resources. Nevertheless, a major
challenge both from a technical and a taxonomic point of view
is to bring these data together in a single portal, whilst recog-
nizing and acknowledging that the taxon concepts may differ
between sources even when using the same scientific name.
Since October 2016, descriptions, species distribution data
and other Content is added to the Taxonomic Backbone to
create the online Flora of the world’s plants.
The WFO Consortium has established different working
groups to develop a strategy and editorial workflow building
upon a variety of information sources to deliver the best-
quality taxonomic backbone possible at a global level. Among
these, the Taxonomic Working Group (TaxWG) and the Tech-
nical Working Group (TechWG) are essential to delivering
this strategy. Workshops of these Working Groups held dur-
ing the St. Louis (2012), Edinburgh (2013), St. Petersburg
(2014), Geneva (2015), Rio de Janeiro (2015), New York
(2016), Pretoria (2016), Berlin (2017), Paris (2017), Bogotá
(2018), Dublin (2018), Istanbul (2019) and St. Louis (2019)
meetings of WFO, as well as numerous teleconferences and
special purpose meetings, developed the strategic and practi-
cal aspects of the project. Our objective in this article is to
summarize the results obtained so far.
■ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF THE
WORLD FLORA ONLINE
The WFO is a consortium of partner institutions from
countries around the world (www.worldfloraonline.org). It is
open to partner institutions as members who actively carry
out scientific work such as research institutes focusing on
the assessment of plant diversity and taxonomy but also con-
sortia developing major Flora and checklist projects as well
as organisations aggregating and disseminating biodiversity
data (e.g., GBIF or CoL). The WFO is managed through its
Council, which consists of representatives of all member insti-
tutions and usually meets twice a year, hosted by one of the
member institutions in an alternating way. The Council acts
as the main decision-making body by adopting not only the
general strategy and policy for the WFO but also technical
documents regarding, for example, the workflow to manage
the dynamic WFO Taxonomic Backbone and Content, data
ingestion standards, editorial standards and major taxonomic
decisions. A further role of the Council is to adopt and pro-
mote Taxonomic Expert Networks, who manage the Taxo-
nomic Backbone and Content of a group of plants in their
expertise, thereby integrating knowledge and furthering par-
ticipation and collaboration of taxonomists internationally.
The botanists who get organized in a Taxonomic Expert Net-
work should do active research on taxonomy and evolution
of their respective plant group with a signif icant publication
record (taxonomic treatments and peer-reviewed journal
papers). A Taxonomic Expert Network should broadly repre-
sent the colleagues working on a plant group internationally,
should have an institutional backup at least for the coordina-
tion and technical support, and be prepared to develop and
curate the taxonomic backbone of this plant group. Docu-
ments for discussion and decision in the council are prepared
by three working groups and are documented in the minutes of
the council meetings. The WFO’s participatory and transpar-
ent management aims to include as directly as possible the
needs of research institutions producing taxonomic and floris-
tic data as well as closely liaising with global biodiversity data
infrastructures that require reliable taxonomic information.
The Technical Working Group is in charge of the manage-
ment of the data and the web portal, the Taxonomic Working
Group emphasizes on the taxonomic concepts and content, and
the Communications Working Group manages the dissemina-
tion of the consortium’s activities. Working groups are open
to members of the consortium, who delegate staff members
depending on their expertise. The council and the working
groups are co-chaired by two representatives that are elected
at each meeting for the coming period.
The taxonomic coverage of the WFO is land plants
(i.e., angiosperms, gymnosperms, ferns and fern allies, mosses,
hornworts and liverworts). As of July 2020, the World Flora
Online Portal presents 350,510 accepted species and includes
1,325,205 names with currently over 120,000 descriptions.
More than 1.1 million literature references document the
nomenclature and the sources of the information and are pre-
sented in the portal. The portal also depicts the data from the
IUCN red list, which were imported into WFO as Content
datasets.
To function as a comprehensive global source, WFO strives
to include all effectively published plant names (as defined in the
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants)
4Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
including invalid “designations”in its Taxonomic Backbone
(currently excluding algae). This information resource is made
available under a Creative Commons CC Zero Waiver (“No
Rights Reserved”) to be reusable without restrictions. As a
prerequisite for efficient data management, WFO has intro-
duced a WFO-ID, which is a unique, immutable identifier
for each name in the Backbone, regardless of its taxonomic
and nomenclatural status. For machine readability, Represen-
tational State Transfer (REST) services are available. This was
a necessary step since other IDs are not unique or don’t fully
cover WFO’s scope (e.g., IPNI, in part, contains identical
names coming from the original sources Index Kewensis,
Gray Index and Australian Plant Names Index with different
IDs; it does not cover hornworts, liverworts and mosses; and
it has gaps in particular with respect to infraspecific taxa).
Building on this nomenclatural resource, a single classifica-
tion of taxon names and their synonyms is built to which Con-
tent data (such as descriptions, images, and geographic dis-
tributions) supplied by Content Providers can be attached. In
addition, a list of names is maintained that have been excluded
by the Taxonomic Expert Networks for various reasons, e.g.,
outdated orthographic variants, names not validly published,
names that were not included as synonyms, or names from
old publications that –although validly published –could
not be assigned a place in the classification. Because these
names may still come up in the process of matching names
coming from Content Providers, they are considered in the
name matching process (see below).
Currently, the WFO gives priority to achieving and dynam-
ically managing a comprehensive Taxonomic Backbone and to
linking as much Content as possible to facilitate access (see
also “workflow”below). Therefore, the different taxonomic
concepts that may be behind a name are not directly tracked
by WFO, nor are concept relationships depicted (for example,
between “sensu lato”and “sensu stricto”taxa). This currently
also refers to misapplied names (i.e., a taxon concept that does
not include the type of the name assigned to it). This may pres-
ently, in some cases, lead to incorrect assignment of content
data that has to be resolved in the future. For the same reason,
at the moment no taxon IDs are assigned although this may
be added in the future. In this context, it may be noted that
WFO does not create new content for regions of the world that
currently lack a modern Flora, or families and genera without a
recent revision or monograph. Nevertheless, WFO does facili-
tate floristic and taxonomic research by integrating the available
sources and making them available electronically in a highly
structured way. For all applications that need a globally consis-
tent taxonomic backbone with distribution information, WFO
aims at being the most reliable and up-to-date information
source. WFO will manage the core taxonomic content (descrip-
tive data, images and keys facilitating plant identification) and
provide a one-stop-shop for external users with respect to the
backbone, whereas these external users provide applied taxon-
linked data (plant trait databases, conservation status, etc.). In
the case of nucleotide archives, data are taxon-linked but are
increasingly going to be specimen-linked in addition (Dröge
& al., 2013). These linkages have to be established by mutual
agreements, which the WFO Council is forging with the orga-
nisations maintaining such resources, either directly or via
aggregators, such as GBIF or the CoL.
■THE WORKFLOW TO MANAGE THE WFO
TAXONOMIC BACKBONE AND CONTENT
The challenge of integrating the available information
into a single global resource on the world’s plants was to
develop a workflow that can handle a broad spectrum of pub-
lished information. Such a workflow, therefore, had to con-
sider that taxonomic treatments will vary with respect to
geographical scope (global monographic vs. local Floras),
age and scientific methodology (in particular whether treat-
ments include the results of phylogenetic studies or not). In
the case of accounts in Floras, these may be written by
authors who may or may not be specialists for that particular
taxonomic group, potentially leading to differences in qual-
ity in the sense that they may or may not reflect the current
state of knowledge. In Floras, the descriptions may refer spe-
cifically to the morphological features of the taxon within the
geographical scope of the Flora. Such descriptive Content is
further heavily influenced by the format of a Flora or mono-
graphic series, and ontologies/descriptive terminologies are
frequently not standardized. Also, the way descriptions have
been generated by the authors can vary considerably: either
using a more or less intuitive selection of characters based
on the experience of the author with variable degrees of con-
sistency across taxa, or being based on consistent compara-
tive analyses of a documented set of specimens assigned to
a taxon. The ideal would be to generate descriptions from
structured data in an additive taxonomic workflow (Kilian
& al., 2015; Henning & al., 2018) that integrates specimen-
based evolutionary research with the generation of treat-
ments, facilitated by electronic tools. This would also allow
to map taxon concepts accurately. However, only a small
fraction of descriptions available to date are derived from
structured data.
To account for the differing data qualities of the available
information sources, WFO strictly distinguishes between gen-
erating and curating the WFO Taxonomic Backbone and in-
corporating Content data. The classification used by a source
treatment (checklist, Flora or monograph) is the taxonomically
consistent treatment of all incorporated names, i.e., their treat-
ment as accepted taxon names, synonyms, or excluded names.
Since floristic and monographic treatments represent the infor-
mation at a certain point in time, and also due to differences in
taxon circumscription in regional versus global accounts, there
will be discrepancies between the taxonomic backbone in the
sources of information and the Taxonomic Backbone. Incorpo-
rating content from such treatments into the WFO currently
takes a rather mechanical approach, by linking descriptions
pertaining to a taxon name in the source to the respective
name in the Taxonomic Backbone. The Content thus becomes
Version of Record 5
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
accessible in the portal via a WFO Taxonomic Backbone
taxon name or one of its synonyms. The source of the Content
is cited, as well as the accepted name according to the Taxo-
nomic Backbone, if Content was submitted under a synonym.
In this way, all the names that were used to annotate a
description, regardless of whether they are still accepted or
now treated as a synonym, will be linked to the currently
accepted name. In the case of merging taxa that were in some
sources previously treated separately, the WFO will therefore
indirectly indicate this concept change. But two or more
descriptions are needed to cover the features of the more
widely circumscribed taxon completely. The situation is more
difficult when specimens previously included in a wider taxon
concept become assigned to a new taxon (e.g., a new species).
In this case, there will be a published new description resem-
bling the narrower taxon concept but no formal name relation
directly evident in the Taxonomic Backbone. As a consequence,
the description of the older, wider taxon concept that was per-
haps used in a Flora will be misleading. But new species
should nowadays be based on a thorough analysis of charac-
ters and specimens with information on their area of distri-
bution (incl. countries, etc.). If the information has been
provided to WFO, a query would still provide up-to-date infor-
mation and facilitate the re-identification of specimens. Also,
it has to be noted that changes in the assignment of species to
a genus, which are name changes and not taxon concept
changes, are well handled by the WFO. This is important
because these are perhaps the most frequent name changes.
The still correct species descriptions are linked individually
to the currently accepted species name and are thus found in
their right place. However, at the genus level, the taxon con-
cept changes in these cases.
Mapping taxon concepts as they have been used in differ-
ent treatments and their shifts would be ideal for getting accu-
rate retrieval of derived information (e.g., trait or conservation
status information of a taxon) that is usually connected to iden-
tifications made by using a certain treatment (e.g., from a Flora
or monograph). This is currently not achievable for all taxa on a
global scale. Nevertheless, we believe that our largely name-
based approach to link Content to an up-to-date globally consis-
tent Taxonomic Backbone is already a big advance for many
user needs.
The construction of the Taxonomic Backbone is therefore
central to the entire WFO enterprise. The Taxonomic Backbone
determines the accessibility of the Content data and at the same
time represents a taxonomic opinion on the circumscription of
taxa. The WFO strives, therefore, to present a consensus on cur-
rent classification. This represents a challenge for the taxonomic
community, but experience, e.g., in Brazil (BFG, 2018), shows
that with a certain amount of pragmatism, this can be achieved.
For WFO, the initial pragmatic decision was to use The Plant
List v.1.1. (TPL, 2013) as the starting point for the backbone,
as this was the most comprehensive single information resource
covering all plants. The Plant List is not perfect –ca. 25% of the
names are unresolved, and not all the taxonomic decisions
within it are derived from peer-reviewed, curated authoritative
sources. Also, many infraspecific taxa are not included, and
the nomenclatural status of the names is not always correct.
In the process of building and updating the Taxonomic
Backbone, and adding Content, there will be a distinction of
data involving names and synonymy depending on the follow-
ing categories:
The 1st level is data being actively managed as a (mod-
ern) global taxonomic treatment. Ideally, this has been or is
being achieved through Taxonomic ExpertNetworks, specialist
networks of colleagues who are currently doing research on a
group of plants and collaboratively synthesize the knowledge
at a global scale (consistent taxonomic backbone) and continu-
ously update this using a dynamic information system (see
Tables 1A, 1B). The WFO Taxonomic Backbone is updated
at regular intervals by replacing it by output from that informa-
tion system, which must include all names and their WFO-IDs
that were previously used in the Taxonomic Backbone for that
taxonomic group. This way, the number of unresolved names is
constantly reduced.
The 2nd level is data from large-scale (continental) syn-
theses where globally consistent treatments are not available.
The idea is to employ a consistent taxonomic backbone for large
parts of the world and to bring together a larger number of coun-
try or local Floras into a regional synthesis to realize large-scale
continental consistency of the taxonomic backbone. This may
also be more in-line with the priorities of individual researchers
and institutions, which often have a regional approach (in their
own or a foreign geographic location) for their taxonomic work.
A consensus taxonomy for the backbone may be easier to
achieve on a continental level as compared to globally because
species on continents are more likely to correspond to single
clades. However, in the process of incorporating the data into
WFO, the same problems arise as in the case of individual Flora
treatments (option three below): The existence of differences in
the backbone between the continental backbones and the exist-
ing global WFO Taxonomic Backbone will generate concept
problems that can only be resolved by specialists. To some
extent, these can be detected automatically in the ingestion pro-
cess and marked with appropriate caveats, but this is not always
the case. A first step in the WFO workflow is thus to ensure that
all names in these second-choice treatments are present in the
Taxonomic Backbone and, where possible, to provide feedback
any omissions to the Taxonomic Expert Networks.
The 3rd level refers to parts of the Taxonomic Backbone
that are not covered by specialist networks on a global scale nor
being partially resolved by large-scale (continental) efforts.
Such existing resources will have to be linked to the existing
Taxonomic Backbone. Names that have not been treated previ-
ously need to be resolved in some way, at least concerning their
systematic position.
The workflow for ingesting Content will then proceed by
matching this content with the Taxonomic Backbone. In effect,
all descriptions, distribution data, etc. coming in from Flora
datasets and also monographs thus become assigned to an
accepted name (i.e., a taxon), either directly or through a syn-
onym of the respective accepted name. In the case that a name
6Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
coming in from a Content source does not yet exist in the Tax-
onomic Backbone, it is forwarded to a Taxonomic Expert Net-
work (for those groups for which a Taxonomic Expert Network
exists; level 1) to resolve it and correctly place it in the Taxo-
nomic Backbone. If a taxon is not covered by a Taxonomic
Expert Network, the name is given to the editors of a large-scale
checklist (level 2), who will resolve it and provide this informa-
tion to WFO. In the case that this name comes from a source that
is not covered through levels 1 and 2, the Taxonomic Working
Group will handle it.
Although in the current WFO system, Content data are
not managed by a Taxonomic Expert Network, this may
change in the future. In fact, there are already some taxon por-
tals (see Tables 1A, 1B) that provide content data curated in a
more detailed way, matching not only the accepted names but
also the accepted taxon concepts. Currently, these content data
will be simply ingested and made accessible similarly to data
from all other sources. This priority was set as it can be ful-
filled by a largely automated technical workflow and will
accelerate the increase in WFO’s coverage.
We are aware that concept problems will also arise in the
WFO System as a consequence of changes in the Taxonomic
Backbone. As a future first step, an automated procedure may
deduce potential issues, such as splitting or lumping of taxa
from changes in synonymy, when an update of the taxonomic
backbone takes place. These automated procedures will iden-
tify areas where taxonomic concepts may be in conflict, indi-
cating problematic taxon names and potential mismatches.
Taxa identif ied this way should ideally bear a caveat state-
ment, at least warning users that attached descriptive informa-
tion may not be aligned with the latest state of the taxonomic
backbone. Widespread species will have treatments in many
Floras, but still, the species concepts may differ.
■TAXONOMIC EXPERT NETWORKS IN THE
WFO SYSTEM
From the discussion above, it becomes clear that successful
Taxonomic Expert Networks are a prerequisite for a successful
and sustained WFO process. We define a Taxonomic Expert
Network as a group of specialists that can count on a continu-
ous organizational structure and a jointly used taxonomic in-
formation system. Pioneering initiatives in this sense were,
Table 1A. Taxonomic Expert Networks (TENs) established within World Flora Online.
Taxon Website and contact Notes
Aquifoliaceae
480 spp.
http://www.ville-ge.ch/cjb/bd/aqf/
P.-A. Loizeau (G), pierre-andre.loizeau@ville-ge.ch
Name matching through Botalista Nom module for updating the
Taxonomic Backbone done.
Arecaceae
2,400 spp.
http://www.palmweb.org
B. Baker (K)
Authoritative source about palms.
Work underway based on data in DwC-A.
Begoniaceae
1,900 spp.
https://padme.rbge.org.uk/Begonia/home
M. Hughes (E)
Name matching done.
Caryophyllales
12,000 spp.
http://www.Caryophyllales.org
BGBM (B) & partners IBUNAM (MEXU) and
Darwinion (SI)
Taxonomic backbone revised for genera (complete) and species
for Nepenthaceae, Cactaceae, Plumbaginacae and many smaller
families are complete in TEN’s database; ingestion successfully
tested (see text).
Ericaceae
5,400 spp.
Ericaceae Resource Centre Ericoideae well underway, other subfamilies in progress incl.
WFO-ID assignment.
Gesneriaceae
3,540 spp.
H. Atkins (E) TEN dataset being updated.
Hypericum S. Crickett (Graz), N. Nürk (Bayreuth) Incorporation of data from BM underway.
Irvingiaceae
10 spp.
D. Harris (E) Curation completed.
Musaceae
80 spp.
T. Haevermans (P) WFO to WCVP name match completed.
Styracaceae
160 spp.
P. Fritsch (BRIT) Final correction in Botalista.
Zingiberaceae
2,100 spp.
M. Newman (E) Initial name matching corrections are underway
Pinophyta (incl.
Ginkgoaceae)
620 spp.
P. Thomas (E) TEN dataset being updated.
Bryophytes
20,000 spp.
https://www.tropicos.org
J. Brinda (MO)
Authorised. Currently updating higher classification of
Bryophytes in WFO Taxonomic Backbone.
Version of Record 7
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
for example, ILDIS for legumes (Bisby, 1993), Solanaceae
Source (2004–). Also the eMonocot project developed by
Wilkin and colleagues at Kew aimed at creating a virtual envi-
ronment to enhance collaboration of those working on mono-
cots (Santarsiero, 2013), but a continuation as an independent
project with the described informatics tools was not followed
up. The idea of specialists in a larger taxonomic group coming
together and cooperating to advance the knowledge about that
group is definitely not a new one, as demonstrated by many
taxon-specific conferences, in some cases with resulting pub-
lications. Interest in cooperation is thus clearly a feature of the
plant taxonomic community. A somewhat firmer organizational
structure and support from information technology geared
at research cooperation, dissemination of results and data,
and their use in applied fields such as conservation, as well
as joint publications, may lead to further progress. This has
the potential to bring about the much-needed speeding-up of
progress in correctly delineating species boundaries, describ-
ing these entities in a timely manner and also making this
information available (see Dayrat, 2005). Institutions may gain
visibility by providing coordinating roles and/or the necessary
IT-support. Individual taxonomists gain a forum to prioritize
their research and, e.g., publish partial results. Individuals and
institutions in taxonomy live in a competitive scientific world,
so participation in a Taxonomic Expert Network must have
advantages beyond a single product such as a WFO treatment.
The WFO, however, may be able to play a role in instigating
the formation of Taxonomic Expert Networks.
One issue in the formation of a Taxonomic Expert Net-
work is the size of the taxonomic group covered. A large
Table 1B. Other available electronic taxon portals with global taxonomic slicing.
Taxon Website and contact Notes
Asteraceae
23,600 spp.
Global Compositae Database (GCD)
http://compositae.org
Y.C. Flann, M. Bonifacino de León (UDELAR)
Evolution and development of the Global Compositae
Checklist currently underway.
Boraginales
2,700 spp.
Boraginales Working Group
http://boraginales.myspecies.info/
Curated consensus. Taxonomic family-level backbone.
Brassicaceae
4,100 spp.
BrassiBase
https://brassibase.cos.uni-heidelberg.de
M. Koch (HEID)
Comprehensive website including species-level
checklist, phylogenetics tools, etc.
Campanuloideae
800 spp.
http://Campanula.e-taxonomy.net
BGBM (B)
Species-level taxonomic backbone, and structured
morphological and molecular data.
Cichorieae
2,400 spp.
Cichorieae Systematics Portal
http://cichorieae.e-taxonomy.net/portal
BGBM (B), N. Kilian, R. Hand, E. von Raab-Straube
Species-level taxonomic backbone and descriptions,
continuously updated, to participate in Asteraceae TEN.
Cycadaceae
270 spp.
http://www.cycadgroup.org/
M. Calonje
Centered around IUCN cycad specialist group.
Dioscoreaceae
870 spp.
L. Raz (COL) Update of taxonomic backbone underway.
Dipterocarpaceae
720 spp.
https://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/diptero/
M. Newman (E)
TEN ready to begin.
Poaceae
12,000 spp.
https://www.kew.org/data/grasses-db/index.htm
M. Vorontsova (K)
Interactive database with descriptions, synonyms and
keys in DELTA.
Lecythidaceae
311 spp.
Lecythidaceae—the Brazil nut family
http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/projects/lp/
S.A. Mori, N.P. Smith, X. Cornejo & G.T. Prance
Species-level taxonomic backbone and descriptions.
Regularly updated.
Legumes
16,400 spp.
International Legume Database & Information Service
https://www.ildis.org/
Y.R. Roskov, F.A. Bisby, J.L. Zarucchi, B.D. Schrire &
R.J. White
Version 10.01 of the ILDIS Taxonomic Backbone is
available via their portal. The data was last edited in June
2018. There is a drive to reinvigorate the taxonomic
community in this collaboration.
Melastomataceae
5,150 spp.
http://www.melastomataceae.net
F. Michelangeli (NY)
Data incorporation still underway.
Quiinaceae
50 spp.
G. Zizka (FR) Unpublished website with content.
Sapotaceae
1,800 spp.
https://padme.rbge.org.uk/sapotaceae/
P. Wilkie (E)
Update of taxonomic backbone underway.
8Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
enough monophyletic group should be selected to avoid fall-
ing back to the individual specialist level, but no restrictions
with regard to the taxonomic rank should be imposed. For
example, some large genera such as Carex or Euphorbia
may well merit coverage by an individual Taxonomic Expert
Network, while the multitude of families in Caryophyllales
merit inclusion in an order-level Taxonomic Expert Network.
In the context of WFO, the main responsibility of a Tax-
onomic Expert Network will be the maintenance of the Taxo-
nomic Backbone in their respective group. However, as stated
above, management of descriptive content would also best be
handled by a Taxonomic Expert Network, although this may
be a long-term perspective for many taxonomic groups. A
necessary medium-term aim would be the curation of geo-
graphic distribution data, such as in GBIF, because this would
directly affect the usability of WFO in local, national and
regional contexts, for example in the management of natural
resources and conservation.
WFO standards developed for the ingestion of information
have the potential to have a structuring influence on the phyto-
taxonomic community. However, channeling all information
through Taxonomic Expert Networks or other networks will
need rather sophisticated data handling capabilities and sub-
stantial editorial resources at the networks’side, which will
often not be available. Language issues may further aggravate
this. In view of the immediate short-term deadline of 2020, this
results in a certain dilemma: the currently applied method of
ingesting all datasets into the WFO database and managing
them only via names in the Taxonomic Backbone will not in-
corporate information on concept relations generated by the
specialist networks. We realize that a high-quality product will
only be achievable for certain groups of angiosperms by the
end of 2020. Thus, we need to make sure that WFO becomes
truly dynamic and sustainable and that it can be improved as
better information becomes available. We hope that concep-
tual discussions surrounding this endeavour will ultimately
result in the establishment of organized and institutionally
supported specialist networks, and that the increasing activity
of such Taxonomic Expert Networks will gradually transform
the taxonomic landscape. Therefore, prospective Taxonomic
Expert Networks are welcome to make a proposal to the
WFO council, and the council is also actively working to sup-
port the formation of new Taxonomic Expert Networks.
■DATA SOURCES FOR THE WORLD
FLORA ONLINE
There are two main kinds of data sources that both yield a
wealth of information. This information is either on specif ic
taxa (through online taxon pages managed by Taxonomic
Expert Networks, published monographs and revisions) or
on the plants in a specific geographical area (through Floras
and checklists). However, the current state of knowledge var-
ies considerably with respect to different plant groups and
geographical regions. Active research networks exist for some
taxa but not for others, and more recent revisions and mono-
graphs are available for individual genera and sometimes fam-
ilies in a mosaic-like pattern. Such monographic treatments
cover the entire distributional range of the respective taxa,
whereas Floras have limited geographic coverage. There are
many completed and active modern Flora projects around
the world. In the following, we provide an overview on the
major existing resources for content data, with an attempt to
look at what is in principle already available in a digital for-
mat, and show what has been so far ingested into the WFO
(see Appendix 1).
As a principle, the taxonomic portals, which are managed
by the respective specialist networks or individual researchers,
are born digital. Provided that there is an agreement with the
respective authors and that the collaboration with the respec-
tive Taxonomic Expert Network was adopted by the WFO
council, ingesting the Taxonomic Backbone and Content data
depends on the compatibility of data formats and the imple-
mentation of a technical workflow. The necessary data stan-
dards and some experiences on the practical implementation
of the workflow are thus reported below. Table 1 presents a list
of electronic taxon portals. It shows that the taxonomic com-
munity is making a lot of progress towards dynamic infor-
mation sources for selected families and genera. The table
highlights those Taxonomic Expert Networks and portals that
are already interacting with WFO (Table 1A).
Also, a wealth of printed monographic information exists.
In most cases, modern monographs are dedicated to mono-
phyletic taxonomic entities, which are treated throughout their
entire range of distribution (see Kilian & al., 2017; or Pessoa
& Alves, 2019 for recent examples). This information is in
journals or series, and has either already been scanned or
needs to be scanned and made machine-readable via a mark-
up process. Large-scale Floras can also play a monographic role
for their endemic higher taxa; for example, the Flora Neotro-
pica is actually a series of monographs for Neotropical plants.
A recent example is the Quiinaceae (Schneider & Zizka, 2016),
a complete treatment for that exclusively Neotropical plant
family. The Species Plantarum Project –Flora of the World
(SPPFW; Prance, 1992; G.F. Smith, 1996, 2002) published
worldwide monographs of plant groups up to the year 2005.
The SPPFW treatments are available as pdfs and cover appro-
ximately 1000 species in 11 families in great detail and with a
globally consistent taxonomic backbone (Brummitt & al.,
2001) but without updates after their publication.
A part of the globe is covered by large-scale checklists
(see above, level 2 data) with a consistent taxonomic back-
bone. The African Plant Database (2020) currently includes
78,076 accepted taxa and 203,587 names with their nomen-
clatural status for the African continent and Madagascar.
It is already harmonized with the Botanical Database of
Southern Africa (BODATSA; SANBI, 2016). The Euro+Med
PlantBase (Euro+Med, 2006–) covers Europe, the Mediter-
ranean region and the Caucasus, which is a biogeographi-
cally consistent region. It includes ca. 44,417 accepted spe-
cies and subspecies of vascular plants plus more than 94,000
Version of Record 9
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
synonyms, with an extensive bibliography, mapping of misap-
plied names, country-level distribution data and status infor-
mation. The Checklist of the Vascular Plant Species of the
Americas (Ulloa Ulloa & al., 2017) is a searchable database
with nearly 125,000 species (Ulloa Ulloa & al., 2018–), inte-
grating the many country-level checklists elaborated since the
1990s. The Australian Plant Census (Australian Plant Consen-
sus, 2005–) lists nearly 28,000 species as accepted. Advan-
tages of such checklists are the provision of a complete
taxonomic coverage at least for vascular plants, a dynamic
architecture and up-to-date information (albeit with content
in the sense of WFO mostly restricted to geographic distribu-
tion). The African Plant Database is maintained in the modu-
lar management system Botalista (Botalista, 2019); BODATSA
is held in BRAHMS (1989–), whereas Euro+Med Plantbase
uses the EDIT Platform for Cybertaxonomy (Ciardelli & al.,
2009; Berendsohn, 2010; EDIT, 2019), and the Americas
checklist is managed in Tropicos (2019).
Many floristic projects continue to generate treatments for
vast areas of the world, but in most cases, they are far from com-
plete. Nevertheless, Floras hold the most extensive amount of
Content relevant to WFO. In most of the complete Floras, the
treatments were published over decades, so that the earlier fam-
ily accounts may not necessarily reflect current genus and spe-
cies circumscriptions, but due to the aforementioned progress
in systematics, this is often also true for Floras still in progress.
Frodin (2001) provided the last comprehensive overview of
Floras published or in progress.
Several more recent large Floras provide consistent treat-
ments at (or almost at) continental scale. Recently, the Flora
of China (Wu & al., 1994–2013) was completed; Flora of
North America (Flora of North America Editorial Committee,
1993–) and Flora of Australia (1981–) are well underway (see
Appendix 1), whereas others such as Flora Malesiana (Van
Welzen & al., 1948–) cover just a quarter of the taxa. A look
at published Floras from different regions of the world makes
clear that substantial content is already available, but it also
illustrates some conspicuous large gaps that need filling. To
get an overview on the content that is or potentially could be
available for WFO, we have therefore summarized the current
state of major floristic treatments (completed and underway)
within the respective continents (Appendix 1). Although a
complete review would be beyond the scope of this paper,
we address important datasets and their availability in elec-
tronic form, and their availability to WFO as currently agreed.
Table 2 presents details of the Floras that so far have been
ingested into WFO (as of July 2020).
This abridged overview clearly shows that a large number of
regional Floras exist, which play a pivotal role in achieving a
global coverage. Although Floras cover a significant proportion
of the world, many of these are not yet in a databased format that
can directly be used for WFO in the short-term. Our overview
also shows that many activities overlap and are not coordinated,
accentuating the need for a concerted approach by the taxo-
nomic community, e.g., by regional initiatives cooperating with
Taxonomic Expert Networks that provide the global view.
Our overview also unravels several major gaps where no
Floras are available. On the African continent, this applies to
the Central African region, where only Flore du Gabon is well
advanced, and Flore d’Afrique Centrale is 60% complete
(Sosef, 2016), but a lot is missing in Cameroon and Equatorial
Guinea. The Republic of the Congo, the Central African
Republic and North and South Sudan remain without any Flora
to date, although an annotated checklist for Sudan exists
(Darbyshire & al., 2015). In the Americas, major gaps are in
the Central Andes where Bolivia has no Flora at all and Peru
only an incomplete and largely outdated one (MacBride,
1936–1960), and in Colombia, just 5% of the plants have been
treated in the monographic series Flora de Colombia.Likewise,
Mexico, with its estimated 24,000–25,000 vascular plants has
no Flora, although various states are covered by active Flora
projects. The list by Villaseñor (2016) provides an overview
of the country, although the evaluation of species in most fam-
ilies and genera by taxonomic experts is still pending. Large
parts of tropical SE Asia (in particular Indonesia and Papua
New Guinea) remain a big challenge in terms of availability
of Flora accounts. These are mostly available as species des-
criptions in journals, or treatments of selected parts of the
flora such as Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak (see Tan
& al., 2009) and the Handbooks of the Flora of Papua New
Guinea (Womersley & al., 1978–1995). However, about 60
to 70% of the known species occurring in the Flora Malesiana
region appear to be covered in regional/local treatments and
scattered publications (E. Smets, pers. comm.). The Botanical
Survey of India has created the eFlora of India with the goal of
making the published treatments of about 4500 of the coun-
try’s estimated 18,000 plant species available online. How-
ever, there is no consistent taxonomic backbone that would
integrate progress in research on Indian plants. There are sev-
eral countries without any Flora such as Myanmar. There are
still gaps in parts of eastern Europe and the Balkan Penin-
sula, where only older and sometimes incomplete Floras are
available. More recently, some synoptic keys were elaborated
(Appendix 1), whereas modern Floras are lacking, and Flora
Europaea (Tutin & al., 1964–1980) is largely outdated. Our
findings underscore the need for an up-to-date and comprehen-
sive global review on the current state of assessment of plant
diversity in all countries throughout the world. On the other
hand, we also show that there is a wealth of information that
could be digitized, mobilized, and would substantially advance
the development of the WFO.
■TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
WORKFLOW
Components developed for the eMonocot project
(Santarsiero, 2013) formed the initial technical base, but are
now being included in a WFO software toolset. Among this,
the data management tool Botalista (2019) is being developed
to manage the WFO data ingestion and quality control system
(Palese & al., 2019). As mentioned above, there are two
10 Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
Table 2. Descriptions included in the World Flora Online portal as of September 2020.
Descriptions of taxa from original source Matching accepted taxa in WFO Taxonomic Backbone
Source
Species
Group Species Subspecies Variety Form
Species
Group Species Subspecies Variety Form
Flora do Brasil 2020 project 33,960 32,793 280 887 –29,984 29,362 210 412 –
Flora Neotropica 4,043 3,987 2 53 1 3,364 3,359 –5–
Flora of China @ efloras.org 33,890 29,244 706 3,940 –27,611 26,115 330 1,166 –
Flora of North America @ efloras.org 13,259 11,079 710 1,470 –11,227 10,043 402 782 –
Flora Mesoamericana 7,424 6,992 158 273 1 6,600 6,462 70 68 –
Flora de Nicaragua 7,326 6,921 160 245 –6,167 6,036 52 79 –
Manual de Plantas de Costa Rica 5,323 5,323 –––4,668 4,668 –––
Flora de Panama 5,370 5,172 28 168 2 3,641 3,607 8 26 –
Flora of west tropical Africa - POWOP 5,308 5,308 –––3,888 3,888 –––
Flora tropical East Africa - POWOP 8,041 8,041 –––6,974 6,974 –––
Flora Zambesiaca - POWOP 6,578 6,578 –––5,763 5,763 –––
e-Flora of South Africa 16,544 15,924 338 279 3 15,666 15,087 323 253 3
Flora de Colombia 845 799 15 31 –681 664 6 11 –
Resimli Türkiye Florası(Illustrated Flora of Turkey) 282 280 2 ––282 280 2 ––
Moss Flora of China 1,720 1,673 10 37 –1,647 1,608 9 29 1
Moss Flora of Central America 704 693 2 9 –673 668 2 3 –
Flora of Pakistan 4,378 4,377 ––1 3,683 3,626 34 23 –
Flora Helvetica –Illustrierte Flora der Schweiz 3,083 2,857 226 ––2,565 2,482 83 ––
Flora of the Lucayan Archipelago 276 276 –––251 251 –––
Flora d’Afrique Centrale 112 2 95 –15 37 1 35 –1
TOTAL and covering taxa in WFO Taxonomic Backbone 127,552 117,536 2,682 7,310 24 106,493 102,239 1,478 2,771 5
The species group is the total of ranks at species level and below. The totals given for descriptions obtained from all Floras as original source is a sum whereas the totals given for matching accepted
taxa in the WFO Taxonomic Backbone at the end of the Table (in italics) correspond to the taxa covered from the Backbone, counting each taxon only once.
Version of Record 11
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
complementary workflows: contributions to the Taxonomic
Backbone and Content contributions. The Taxonomic Back-
bone provides the glue for the entire information system,
and it is the way of linking and discovering content contribu-
tions from different sources. Key requirements are:
(i) taxonomic consistency, i.e., there should be only one
accepted name for each taxon, and taxa of the same rank
should not overlap in their circumscription;
(ii) comprehensiveness, i.e., all names that (potentially)
are coming with contributions of content must be covered;
eventually, all effectively published names should be covered;
(iii) comprehensive status assignment, i.e., all names
should either be taxon names or synonyms or be marked as
unresolved or excluded; and
(iv) unique identification, i.e., every name in the Taxo-
nomic Backbone should have a globally unique identifier that
is maintained ideally forever.
After looking at several options, the WFO Council, acting
on a recommendation from the WFO Technology Working
Group, has established the WFO Identifier (WFO-ID) to cover
the latter requirement. WFO-IDs are 10-digit numbers with a
“wfo-”prefix. The aim is to establish a resolvable identifier
for all existing plant names that will not only be used in the
context of WFO but can be used universally to reference
plant names. WFO resolves its WFO-IDs utilizing HTTP URIs
(Berners-Lee, 2005), which are structured as “http://www.
worldfloraonline.org/taxon/”followed by the WFO-ID of the
name. Ideally, all taxonomic slices of the backbone data are
managed by Taxonomic Expert Networks with the technical
resources to provide standardized information that can be
directly input into a staging area of the WFO data manage-
ment software (Fig. 1). A data definition for tabular data that
can be provided to WFO using the Darwin Core-Archive
(DwC-A) file format has been prepared as Guideline for Tax-
onomic Backbone Contributors (WFO, 2019a) as an appendix
to the general Guidelines for Data Contributors (WFO, 2019b).
However, data contributions in other formats can be accepted,
depending on the resources available. The contribution will
undergo an initial technical format check with the “WFO
Gatekeeper”reporting back issues with the data to the data
provider. Once the data pass the initial check, they will under-
go further tests in the “staging area”of the Botalista system
(Palese & al., 2019). Here, things like WFO-ID consistency,
possible conflicts of family assignation, etc. will be reviewed,
where necessary, in consultation with the data provider. Finally,
the update of the Taxonomic Backbone will be incorporated,
completely replacing the previous version (this is why the
WFO-Identif iers must be maintained –existing Content data
will stay linked to them).
For Content contributions (WFO, 2019c), the major pro-
cess is the matching of names in the content treatment with
those in the Taxonomic Backbone. Ideally, this will be done
by the contributor, so that the content comes in with WFO-
IDs already assigned. The name matching otherwise presents
several challenges, which have to be resolved in the staging
area –inter alia the treatment of homonyms and the incorpo-
ration of new names (see Fig. 2).
Although technology can help to streamline the process
and provide automatic and semi-automatic processing, all this
cannot be achieved without input by taxonomists. Essentially,
Fig. 1. Basic workflow for updates of the WFO Taxonomic Backbone.
12 Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
the technical workflow for backbone contributions has to sup-
port, and be closely intertwined with, the curatorial workflow.
Data ingestion case 1: Solanaceae as a TEN. —The
Solanaceae Source (2004–) aims to provide a worldwide taxo-
nomic monograph of the nightshade family, Solanaceae. The
project started with an online monograph of all species in the
mega-diverse genus Solanum and was later extended to cover
the entire family by incorporating all Solanaceae names from
IPNI, with input from the worldwide Solanaceae expert com-
munity. Being a specialist-curated dataset, it was used as one
of the exemplars to ingest a segment of the Taxonomic Back-
bone and, at the same time, descriptions and other linked Con-
tent. The initial data file from solanaceaesource.org contained
14,129 name records (including at the infraspecific level) with
1960 descriptions, 1370 images, 8950 bibliographic referen-
ces and 77,178 records on types and specimens. Solanaceae
Source content is managed in BRAHMS (1989–) and was con-
verted to a ScratchPad (V.S. Smith & al., 2009) installation for
community editing and public access. The data were exported
as a DwC-A zip file, generated automatically through the
functionality of the ScratchPads platform. On WFO’s side,
data checking follows a defined protocol. The taxonomy of
the provided data is checked for consistency, reviewing, for
example, that all accepted taxa should have a parent and all
synonyms should point to an accepted name. Synonyms of
synonyms and missing parent taxa are reported back to the
provider in an iterative communication process. By compari-
son with the existing Taxonomic Backbone, new names to
be added and existing names to be taken out of the Taxonomic
Backbone are also reported back to the provider for confirma-
tion before proceeding. In the process, several problems that
had apparently been introduced during the migration of the
Solanaceae Source data were discovered and reported back
to content providers. For ingestion into WFO, the source data
were corrected and modified to adhere to the requirements
of the eMonocot harvester software used for WFO. Using
solanacaesource.org data helped to sort out how the eMonocot
software (Harvester and Portal) actually worked for Taxono-
mic Backbone data and ferreting out the ins and outs of the
previously undocumented system. It became clear that caution
must be taken when performing data conversion, even with
“clean”taxonomic datasets, as the consequences of errors,
omissions or misinterpretations of data will spread through
the whole dataset. For example, because work on the dataset
had initially focused on Solanum, the generic-level synonymy
was not treated consistently across the entire dataset, meaning
some taxa did not have the expected parent-child relation-
ships. Feeding this back to the data provider meant such
inconsistencies could be corrected, improving not only WFO
but also the original dataset. Collaboration with Solanaceae
Fig. 2. Workflows for dealing with new names coming with content or backbone data for WFO. TEN, Taxonomic Expert Network.
Version of Record 13
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
Source also highlighted the relevance and importance of a
close collaboration with the data provider to assure proper
ingestion and interpretation of the data.
Solanaceae Source is continuously updated with new
names, synonymies and descriptions, added on an ad hoc basis
as they become available. Addition of new names follows their
appearance in the published literature, while new synonymies
and descriptions result from ongoing monographic work in
the family, which proceeds at an uneven pace. The Scratchpad
implementation of the dataset also includes up-to-date descrip-
tions that are not published anywhere else (i.e., in books or
journals but ideally peer-reviewed by contributors), and descrip-
tions adhere to a standard format with the same characters trea-
ted for each taxon. Solanaceae Source is currently in revision,
and in future will focus more on names and descriptions, with
specimens being provided in a different format (possibly not
through the Scratchpad); it is hoped that this will simplify the
data exchange process with WFO. To maintain the Taxonomic
Backbone for Solanaceae in WFO, updates of the Solanaceae
Source dataset are shared with WFO currently on an irregular
basis, but future efforts will focus on regular updates with
downloads of the continuously changing dataset for ingestion
into WFO.
Data ingestion case 2: Nepenthaceae from the Caryo-
phyllales Taxonomic Expert Network. —After publishing
the generic checklist for the order Caryophyllales (Hernández
& al., 2015, continuously updated online: www.caryophyllales.
org), the Caryophyllales Network’s next task is the creation of
a species-level backbone for the entire group. For the Caryo-
phyllales Taxonomic Expert Network, this includes many
authors from more than 20 countries and is carried out in paral-
lel by working on revisions of monophyletic entities at the level
of genera or groups of genera. To provide an example and
develop a workflow, one of us (Berendsohn) used the semi-
monographic Flora Malesiana treatment of the Nepenthaceae
(Cheek & Jebb, 2001), which had been digitized, marked-up
and imported into the EDIT Platform (Hamann & al., 2015).
Flora Malesiana recognised 80 species and 3 naturally occur-
ring named hybrids. The centre of diversity of this monogeneric
family is in the geographic area covered by the Flora. Conse-
quently, it should be a fairly simple task to expand the treatment
to global coverage using the descriptions of the extra-Malesian
taxa as well as those with a wider range from the “skeletal”
monograph provided by Jebb & Cheek (1997) and to add a
few new taxa. This was thought to be a realistic approximation
for the treatment of a taxonomic group corresponding to our
1st-level Content category. To make this into an example treat-
ment for the Caryophyllales Network, too, all names listed in
IPNI and The Plant List (i.e., in the WFO backbone) were to
be treated. Protologues were to be checked and (where possible)
electronically linked to the name, type citations were to be
added and linked, and nomenclatural citations and distribution
data were to be standardized.
Due to some factors, the task turned out to be slightly
more complicated than initially assumed (Berendsohn & al.,
2018). IPNI includes names of several artificial hybrids,
which are perhaps not relevant in the context of WFO, but
which are validly published names that can (and did) block
usage of those names for new taxa. More such names were
found in 19th-century horticultural series. Moreover, some
IPNI names could not be resolved because their original pub-
lication, as stated, could not be traced back. Also, there were
79 new species published after 2001, in addition to the
8 extra-Malesian ones already expected. Some of them had
been published in books and articles not available online.
The original WFO backbone contained 262 names; the fin-
ished compilation consisted of 435 names (hybrid formulas
not included). As a technical process, the data was added to
the EDIT Platform using the TaxEditor tool, and concept rela-
tions between different treatments were established where
necessary. The existing WFO-IDs for names covered by the
original Taxonomic Backbone were incorporated in the treat-
ment as well as IPNI identifiers, where available. For all names
not previously occurring in the Taxonomic Backbone, new
WFO-IDs were created and provided by the WFO Gatekeeper
to be added to the treatment in the EDIT Platform. The entire
backbone Nepenthes treatment, including the WFO-IDs for
all names, was subsequently exported following the procedure
set out in the WFO Guide to contributors (WFO, 2019b). These
data were then used by the WFO Data Manager to replace the
respective “taxonomic slice”in the Taxonomic Backbone. In
this case, there were no additional data from Flora datasets
present in the WFO database, but if there had been, the usage
of WFO-IDs would have guaranteed the correct linkage to
names in the new backbone. In a second step, the additional
data (descriptions, etc.) can also be exported to a DwC-A file,
including the WFO-IDs of the taxa and following the res-
pective data definition (WFO, 2019c) for Content data, and
then turned over to the WFO Data Manager for ingestion into
the WFO database. This two-step process can be repeated if
additional data are added to the Caryophyllales database. The
second step will also be used for data provision from other
databases maintained using the EDIT Platform, e.g., Flora
de la República de Cuba (Greuter & al. 1998–) and Euro+
Med PlantBase (Euro+Med 2006–).
Data ingestion case 3: South Africa as a regional data-
set. —The dataset is composed of the South African National
Plant Checklist (SANPC), which currently includes 23,170
taxa (SANPC, 2019), and the Botanical Database of Southern
Africa (BODATSA; SANBI, 2016), which contains data
related to collections in southern Africa, published floristic
data and related bibliographic references and is commonly
known as the e-Flora of South Africa (Le Roux & al., 2017).
The floristic information was ingested into WFO following a
restructuring step (Ranwashe & Le Roux, 2019) to meet the
DwC-A standard through the Integrated Publishing Toolkit
of GBIF (Robertson & al., 2014).
The first step was the matching of validly published
names (name identifiers) from the South African National
Plant Checklist to the WFO Taxonomic Backbone. This was
implemented by connecting the WFO identifiers to the names
included in the e-Flora of South Africa. Initially, around 85%
14 Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
of taxa provided were matched with names in the Taxonomic
Backbone. Two sources of incompatibility were identified:
(a) incorrect author citations/non-standard author forms or
spelling irregularities in BODATSA, which could easily be
rectified, leading to an improvement of the database and raising
the matched-names ratio to 88% of the names provided; (b) the
remaining names were not available in the Taxonomic Back-
bone. In many cases, these were names of narrow endemics,
infraspecific taxa but also species described after 2013 (when
The Plant List was last updated). These names were added to
the Taxonomic Backbone through a process of registering the
SANPC as a taxonomic backbone contributor. These names
were then ingested into the Taxonomic Backbone as unchecked
names, which allowed the assignment of a WFO-ID. In a fur-
ther step, they can be verified by the provider and the respective
Taxonomic Expert Network (if there is a TEN covering this
taxon) and a decision is made to incorporate each name as
accepted name or a synonym to a then wider taxon concept of
the respective species with a different heterotypic accepted
name. In either case, the description and other content remained
unchanged as provided by BODATSA and is also connected in
WFO to its original name, either being an accepted name or a
synonym.
Once the WFO-IDs were assigned, in the second step, the
content was extracted from BODATSA in three tables, match-
ing records among the different tables: (1) the taxa table, with
WFO-IDs; (2) the references table, with bibliographic cita-
tions of publications pointing to the source of the descriptions,
which contains the reference identifiers along with the cor-
responding WFO-IDs and the bibliographic citations texts;
and (3) the descriptions table, containing the WFO-IDs, the
different types of descriptions, the field def ining the types of
descriptions (e.g., morphology, diagnostic, distribution, habi-
tat) and the bibliographic reference identifiers that link the
bibliographic source from the references table to the descrip-
tions texts.
The third step was uploading the data into the Integrated
Publishing Toolkit (IPT). This tool supports the preparation
of data and prior checking of data to comply with Darwin Core
(DwC) data standard and the DwC-A format. Once all precau-
tions had been taken in terms of mapping the Darwin Core
fields and assuring consistent data, there were no obstacles
encountered. The workflow started with creating a resource
in the IPT (e.g., e-Flora). Then the IPT was connected to the
SQL server database containing the e-Flora descriptions (for
the three tables mentioned above, three different connections
were established). Once connected, the Darwin Core map-
pings were completed (and reflected in a resulting mapping
configuration f ile called meta.xml). The Taxon Core (taxa
table) was the Core used, and the descriptions table and refer-
ences table were associated as extensions. The WFO-IDs were
used to relate the three tables. Additionally, a unique f ield, the
reference identifier was used to link each bibliographic refer-
ence with its corresponding description. This was declared in
the mapping definition of the references table through the
Dublin Core term “dcterms:identifier”. Finally, the successful
implementation of the upload required the mapping of
descriptions (from the descriptions table) to their references
through the reference identifiers (from the references table).
The Dublin Core term “dcterms:source”allows the harvesting
tool used by WFO to create the link between the description
and its bibliographic citation.
■ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE WFO BY 2020
AND BEYOND
The council decided during the 2016 meeting in
South Africa that WFO will be an ongoing program that will
operate post 2020 and not just a response to the 2020 biodiver-
sity goals. This is more than reasonable considering the enor-
mous efforts put in by many institutions and individuals and
the momentum gained in the botanical scientif ic community.
The development of decision making, technical and editorial
workflows has already led to broad participation so that it pro-
vides a solid base for further ref inements.
It is important to note that the WFO is already comprehen-
sive, both in terms of the Taxonomic Backbone that already
includes practically every plant species known and of its Con-
tent. As of July 2020, the WFO contains 350,510 accepted
names of land plants (i.e., names of currently accepted species =
taxa at species level), and 1,325,205 names linked to the unique
and consistent WFO-IDs and the corresponding 1,154,754
references. By the end of 2020, the status of more than 85%
of accepted species has at least been reviewed by specialists
working on the respective families or genera, or the respective
species-level treatments were made by Taxonomic Expert
Networks, which is important for the species classification
to reflect up-to-date research. Only the remaining less than
15% of taxa still comes from the more or less automated pro-
cess used to generate The Plant List, but work is underway to
replace this part by authoritative treatments. The TENs are an
achievement of the WFO programme and are increasingly
covering the families and genera of land plants. The WFO
has therefore already accomplished the best synthesis of land
plant taxonomy, with its Taxonomic Backbone meeting the
requirements of modern global species lists to be science-
based and community-supported (Garnett & al., 2020).
Currently, WFO includes 127,552 descriptions of taxa
at the rank of species and below (see Table 2), which are
assigned to 102,239 accepted species plus 4254 accepted
infraspecific taxa. This means that about 25 thousand descrip-
tions belong to synonyms, which shows that the amount of
taxonomic knowledge turnover is significant and underscores
the need for an up to date taxonomic synthesis as provided by
WFO. There are more than 55,000 images, and many more are
to come in due course. Because the WFO database is a dyna-
mic system with constant updating, stable versions are pro-
vided periodically as citable output. A possible model for
this is the CoL, where annual versions are produced from the
dynamic database to provide a referenceable snapshot of the
entire dataset (Roskov & al., 2019).
Version of Record 15
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
We aim to ensure that the WFO portal is user-friendly and
provides information in an easily accessible and usable format
for consumers based on a single preferred global species list.
The project will be a success if the WFO becomes not only a
research database for the taxonomic community but also pro-
vides data for a wide spectrum of users, which can be applied
especially to plant conservation or other needs arising from
science-based management of biological diversity. Also, the
availability of an application programming interface (API)
and the creation of tools to match plant names against the
WFO Taxonomic Backbone (Kindt, 2020) will promote the
incorporation of WFO information in products created for
end-users.
The development of the WFO is work in progress and will
require input from the entire community, not only in terms of
data but also with respectto collaborative procedures and com-
munication with user communities. Today and in the future,
WFO provides an opportunity to advance standards with
respect to describing decision making processes regarding
the data presented and regarding the editorial workflows in a
dynamic online system. Taxon-based links to the sources
being maintained by Taxonomic Expert Networks will in this
context not become superfluous but may provide easy access
to the research data and original results supporting the hypo-
theses on species and genus limits adopted for classification,
including alternative hypotheses. Here we envision a huge
potential for the Taxonomic Expert Networks when they
become increasingly active in research data management
for “their”taxa.
Apart from work towards mobilizing more data from sources
that are currently only represented as hard-copy-published mate-
rials, and involving more institutions and Taxonomic Expert
Networks from throughout the world, we have some specific
“post 2020”milestones for the WFO. One of them will be to
streamline the incorporation of newly described species, where
Taxonomic Expert Networks do not already pick these up. For
example, in the course of the preparation of the Manual de las
Plantas de Costa Rica, hundreds of taxa were newly described
(Grayum & al., 2004). As long as name registration is not man-
datory for plants (see Turland & al., 2018), these names would
have to be submitted directly to WFO or one of the participating
networks. A workflow involving IPNI and participating net-
works needs to be implemented to manage this. Another mile-
stone concerns software development, which will not only
enhance the overall functionality of the portal but will also focus
to better explore the geographical data to support the utility of
WFO for national and regional inventories and conservation
assessments.
To further raise the quality of taxonomic information
and to pave the way for the mapping of taxon concepts that
are ultimately needed to accurately relate up-to-date taxo-
nomic information to specific geographical areas, some sim-
ple indicators are currently under discussion in the WFO
consortium:
Reasons why a certain name was not accepted can be indi-
cated by “flagging”names to specify one of the following:
(i) it is a taxonomic synonym (i.e., the original concept
behind the name is not regarded as distinct from another
taxon), (ii) the name does not conform to nomenclatural
rules and thus cannot be used (illegitimate names, names
not validly published, etc.), and (iii) names that cannot be
placed because of a lack of knowledge (e.g., because the
protologue only gives scarce information, type specimen
could not be located, etc.).
An indication of the different levels of knowledge regarding
the naturalness of taxa as currently defined. A recently
proposed approach (Borsch & al., 2018) flags taxa in a
backbone treatment as “green”when species limits were
studied with evolutionary methodology; “red”when ini-
tial results of evolutionary analyses point to a currently
accepted species delimitation that probably does not cor-
respond to a natural unit; or “grey”(or yellow online)
when no thorough analysis of species limits has yet been
carried out.
A similar “traffic light”approach may be taken with regard
to insecurities relating to the circumscription of taxon
concepts as mentioned above.
■WFO PROVIDES MUTUAL BENEFITS FOR
REGIONAL FLORAS AND TAXONOMIC
EXPERT NETWORKS
WFO facilitates collaboration and access to data by being
the comprehensive resource on the world’s plants maintained
and verified by the taxonomic community. The preparation
of Floras needs expertise on the occurrence of taxa in a given
geographic region but also expertise on the delimitation of
species and genera; this usually requires analyses including
specimens from beyond the Flora area. On the other hand,
the preparation of global treatments and knowledge syntheses
on certain plant lineages as forwarded by the Taxonomic
Expert Networks needs to cover specimens worldwide. The
research of Taxonomic Expert Networks may go deeper in
delimiting species and genera but will be limited in overall
taxonomic coverage.
Authors who are treating “their”plant group in a particu-
lar geographic region, could thus contact Taxonomic Expert
Networks or even get involved in the respective Taxonomic
Expert Networks. This contact will potentially help to harmo-
nize the use of names and concepts across the globe, thus
positively reinforce a consensus taxonomy. As a future per-
spective, Taxonomic Expert Networks can manage joint in-
formation sources in which structured descriptive data, both
morphological and molecular, become available along with
their links to specimens.
It needs to be underscored that the field of plant taxonomy
is a good example where digitization has already created a
much-improved research environment. This includes better
access to information (e.g., through JSTOR Global Plants,
GBIF and BHL) and communication that is facilitated by elec-
tronic media. But different attitudes to collaboration in the
16 Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
current community are also relevant, shifting more and more
from projects where an individual author has worked alone
on a monograph for many years to teams that approach a
taxonomic synthesis in the sense of integrative taxonomy.
G.F. Smith & al. (2017) have accentuated the compatibility
of the traditional monographic SPPFW-approach with WFO,
but they also pointed out that SPPFW has failed to gain suffi-
cient traction in the botanic community. However, we also
have to acknowledge that the commitments by many institu-
tions worldwide helped to implement the WFO. The recogni-
tion given through the Convention on Biological Diversity
provided additional motivation to this engagement, as the
WFO responds to a globally adopted priority (i.e., GSPC Tar-
get 1). The institutions supported both individuals to take
leading roles and providing in kind and other support that
facilitated the hire of several technical staff. The wider avail-
ability of significant electronic datasets was also a major
driver. Ten to fifteen years ago, many of these datasets hardly
existed that allow the WFO to make full use of the advances in
information technology to integrate with and support the sci-
entific community.
Partnership of members of the taxonomic community
with WFO will further increase the visibility and recognition
of Taxonomic Expert Networks (some specialist taxonomic
websites are not easy to find). Such collaboration will also
strengthen Taxonomic Expert Networks by facilitating access
to names with connected metadata (as an “electronic starting
package”that contains the information in a draft form on
which the Taxonomic Expert Networks can build upon) and
descriptions available for their study groups. This is already
being practiced in some cases and has the potential to be
developed as a service of WFO to the taxonomic community.
From the perspective of Flora projects, the open-access WFO
approach will not only further the accessibility and visibility
of Flora treatments but also their utility by linking names
and a wide variety of descriptions to the current Taxonomic
Backbone.
■WFO CONTRIBUTES TO THE KNOWLEDGE
BASE NEEDED FOR HALTING BIO-
DIVERSITY LOSS AND FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
The WFO project is fundamental to the achievement of
many of the GSPC targets, particularly those that require
comprehensive and authoritative information and baselines
on plant diversity. The GSPC targets are “nested”within the
Aichi Targets, and the achievement of GSPC targets is rec-
ognized as a contribution to their achievement (Convention
on Biological Diversity, 2010). National CBD authorities are
asked to report on progress on both Aichi and GSPC targets,
and use of the WFO as a national reporting tool will help
nations comply with these responsibilities. Through the GSPC,
the WFO is linked to governmental mainstreaming and is there-
fore of relevance to National Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plans (NBSAPs). The global perspective on all plant species
provided by the WFO, including the taxonomy, distribution,
native status, and habitats of plant species, is not only a direct
response to Target 1 of the CBD but will also facilitate the
efforts to achieve Targets 5–11. Some notable targets in which
the WFO will contribute specifically to their achievement are
the following:
Target 2: An assessment of the conservation status of all
known plant species, as far as possible, to guide conser-
vation action.–A good understanding of the taxonomic
basis for plant species is essential for meaningful conser-
vation assessments.
Target 5: At least 75 per cent of the most important areas for
plant diversity of each ecological region protected with
effective management in place for conserving plants and
their genetic diversity.–Distribution information included
in the WFO will help to identify and highlight particular
important areas of high plant diversity.
Target 7: At least 75 per cent of known threatened plant spe-
cies conserved in situ.
Target 8: At least 75 per cent of threatened plant species in
ex situ collections, preferably in the country of origin, and
at least 20 per cent available for recovery and restoration
programmes.–Information on endemism and conserva-
tion status (Target 2) included in the WFO will provide
a means to identify priorities and monitor the achieve-
ment of Targets 7 and 8 and thereby will assist national-
level implementation.
Target 9: 70 per cent of the genetic diversity of crops includ-
ing their wild relatives and other socio-economically
valuable plant species conserved, while respecting, pre-
serving and maintaining associated indigenous and local
knowledge.–WFO can provide a reference point for the
compilation of national, regional, and global lists of
plants of socio-economic importance.
Target 10: Effective management plans in place to prevent
new biological invasions and to manage important areas
for plant diversity that are invaded.–WFO will include
descriptions of species known to be invasive in other
regions but not yet recorded from a particular territory
and so not included in local Floras.
Target 11: No species of wild flora endangered by interna-
tional trade.–Information contained in WFO will be par-
ticularly valuable to help in monitoring the achievement
of this target and for the work of related Conventions,
e.g., CITES.
Target 14: The importance of plant diversity and the need
for its conservation incorporated into communication,
education, and public awareness programmes.–We
hope that the publicity generated for the WFO could
play a part in increasing awareness of the world’s
plants and the issues of their conservation among the
public, as well as increasing knowledge among both
the public and special interest groups such as biodiver-
sity policy makers, citizen scientists, conservationists,
and ecologists.
Version of Record 17
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
Target 16: Institutions, networks and partnerships for plant
conservation established or strengthened at national,
regional, and international levels to achieve the targets
of this Strategy.–Developing the international consor-
tium that will provide the content of WFO will contribute
to the achievement of Target 16.
While the WFO was initially designed to be primarily a
reference for conservationists, it developed into an important
source of botanical information for a wide range of other
users, including the general public. If in the future WFO pro-
vides taxonomic data directly to GBIF to facilitate linkage of
specimen or observation data with quality taxonomic informa-
tion, Targets 2 and 5 (also 8) will become substantially more
tractable. The WFO stands ready to provide data to the CoL
and to contribute for implementing the vision of a single
global unified list of species (Garnett & al., 2020) that is
based on scientific rigor and broad community participation.
For example, WFO is designed to be an important source for
those compiling national biodiversity strategies, Red Lists
and other biodiversity conservation policies and action plans
thus benefiting a community in need of a globally credible
resource. The already available distributional data from a
wide range of sources, such as national-level Floras, allows
for a resolution of the Geographical component in the WFO.
Implementing these coming development phases of the
WFO will be a big step forward towards a solid knowledge
base that can globally support biodiversity conservation and
management.
In the context of the global Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) and the need to provide a data-driven decision-
making basis for biodiversity management and conservation,
WFO provides a valuable new common source for information
on vascular plants and bryophytes that is up to date and increas-
ingly globally consistent. As an authoritative resource, WFO is
backed by the global research community, which ensures that
new knowledge (i.e., newly discovered species, new distribu-
tion records, new results on genus and species limits and
respective taxon concepts) can be incorporated in a timely
manner.
In this context, it is also noteworthy that progress on GSPC
Target 1 has been monitored through the regular CBD Plant
Conservation Reports, as well as on a national basis in National
Reports submitted to the CBD by individual Parties to the Con-
vention. Monitoring progress on the GSPC went ahead pretty
well throughout the decade from 2010 to 2020 and was reported
to the CBD extensively (see https://www.plants2020.net/global-
implementation/). Many of the GSPC targets were designed to
be “SMART”measurable targets, which helped to ensure that
they were easy to act as indicators themselves. The data in the
WFO acts in itself as a pretty good indicator of progress on the
achievement of GSPC Target 1. Preparing the post 2020 glo-
bal biodiversity framework (Convention on Biological Diver-
sity, 2020) should therefore consider these achievements and
promote science-based and data-driven decision making to
achieve its goals, thereby building upon collaboration with
the global scientific community.
WFO has already demonstrated that the botanical com-
munity can come together very effectively and apply their
institutional resources and individual efforts to a project that
is of huge global significance. Funders should note that there
are well-defined work packages, both at the level of general
WFO data structures and Taxonomic Expert Networks that
can match funding requirements in individual countries as
well as in bi- or multilateral contexts. WFO and its Taxonomic
Expert Networks are a globally distributed structure that
allows for countries to invest locally in their research commu-
nities (Flora production and scientific research) and at the
same time participate in a global programme. This is impor-
tant in times when on a global level basic science funding
(including Flora projects and taxonomy) is decreasing. Cur-
rently, national-level Floras in many countries survive from
in-kind contributions of institutions or consortia of institu-
tions –although taxonomically sound data on plant diversity
are a basic requirement to meet national biodiversity targets.
Further considering that the progress rates of country-level
Floras are slow in many countries, awareness should grow that
modern Flora writing can benef it from current (global)
sources and networks such as the WFO.
■CONCLUSIONS
The World Flora Online is the first-ever comprehensive
and authoritative global source of information on the world’s
plant diversity, compiled, moderated, and updated by an expert
and specialist-based community and actively managed by
those who have compiled and contributed the data it includes.
The strength of the project is that it is committed to the FAIR
principles (Wilkinson & al., 2016): FINDABLE—The WFO-
ID serves as a global unique identif ier for each name. WFO
provides all data associated with the name, with its proper
attribution and rights metadata. Users can use the WFO por-
tal to search for information, and WFO’s API allows machi-
nes to search and retrieve information from the system.
ACCESSIBLE—WFO keeps all original input on its file server.
Human-readable metadata and data can be accessed through
the WFO portal, directly or as a download in DwC-A format
or as simple text. Additionally, WFO provides an API that
allows users and machines to interact with the system to search,
access and download information as HTML or JSON. WFO
currently stores and makes available versions of the taxonomic
backbone on its file server, which will also be submitted peri-
odically to a trusted repository. INTEROPERABLE—WFO
uses an adapted Darwin Core data format und DwC-A for data
input and output (WFO, 2019b,c). Users can download the
information in DwC-A or as simple text. WFO’s API enables
users and machines to programmatically access content. It also
provides documentation in RestDoc format for each endpoint
through an OPTIONS request. REUSABLE—WFO recog-
nizes all data providers in the portal and clearly state their
usage licenses. WFO also cites and links to the sources if data
providers indicate us to do so.
18 Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
This way, the WFO approach considerably increases qual-
ity and the credibility of taxonomic information for end-users
of taxonomy. For the global scientific community, the dedi-
cated support of such a collaborative spirit is also very relevant
to further promote additive workflows in plant taxonomy in a
way that facilitates its development as a mega-science. Com-
plying to rigorous scientific quality measures, the Taxonomic
Backbone will promote information discovery on plants by
connecting these data to the correct plant names. As such,
WFO is relevant to all applied fields dealing with the diversity
of plants. Specifically, it will provide input to the CoL and
constitute a consistent taxonomic backbone for GBIF.
The ultimate success of WFO will be measured by the
level of community buy-in to the initiative, which in turn is
likely to depend on the availability of clear communication
channels and user-friendly editing tools, both of which pro-
mote specialist participation. Community participation will
also be key to the sustainability of the resource. If we can
foment a community-wide sense of ownership and collective
responsibility, WFO will have a much greater chance of long-
term success. The partnership approach that has been devel-
oped since the earliest beginnings of the project is, therefore,
of fundamental importance. If it is seen as an endeavour led
by only a few very large institutions, it will fail to engender
broad participation by winning hearts, minds, and funding.
As a global initiative, it needs the support of all countries, in
particular the CBD signatories, and the botanists working in
those countries.
■AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors participated in the development of the content. TB led
the writing of the text with contributions from all authors. CM, MW and
WB produced the figures, AE Table 1, WU Table 2 and TB Appendix
1 with help from all authors. All commented and approved the final
version. —TB, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5724-2786; WB, https://
orcid.org/0000-0001-9945-7606; ED, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
4661-0272; SD, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0123-9596; AE, https://
orcid.org/0000-0002-8677-5688; PF, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
3606-663X; DG, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9249-7389; AG, https://
orcid.org/0000-0001-6973-5337; TH, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8934-
4544; SK, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7698-3945; MMLR, https://
orcid.org/0000-0003-4705-2513; P-AL, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
6196-6090; CM, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7847-9299; JTM, https://
orcid.org/0000-0002-5788-9010; AP, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
6052-6675; JP, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1624-8807; CP, https://
orcid.org/0000-0002-7619-824X; VS, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
0584-1672; MS, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6997-5813; EvR-S,
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6561-4490; LR, https://orcid.org/0000-
0002-3152-4726; RS, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8363-4663; ES,
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9416-983X; WT, https://orcid.org/0000-
0002-4996-536X WU, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2863-2491; VU,
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4049-0820; MW, https://orcid.org/
0000-0002-4989-3976; PWJ, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6002-8166.
■ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
■LITERATURE CITED
ABRS 2019. Bryophtes of Australia. Canberra: Australian Biological
Resources Study, Department of the Environment and Energy.
https://profiles.ala.org.au/opus/boa (accessed 2 Nov 2019).
Acevedo-Rodríguez, P. & Strong, M.T. 2012. Catalogue of seed
plants of the West Indies. Smithsonian Contributions to Botany
98. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. https://
doi.org/10.5479/si.0081024X.98.1
Adams, C.D. 1972. Flowering plants of Jamaica. Mona: University of
the West Indies.
African Plant Database 2020. African Plant Database, version 3.4.0.
Geneva: Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Gen-
ève; Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute.
http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/africa/ (accessed 14 Jul
2020).
Aké-Assi, L. 2001. Flore de la Côte-d’Ivoire: Catalogue systématique,
biogéographie et écologie, vol. 1. Boisseria 57. Geneva: Conser-
vatoire et Jardin Botaniques de Genève.
Aké-Assi, L. 2002. Flore de la Côte-d’Ivoire: Catalogue systématique,
biogéographie et écologie, vol. 2. Boisseria 58. Geneva: Conser-
vatoire et Jardin Botaniques de Genève.
Akoègninou, A., Van der Burg, W.J. & Van der Maesen, L.J.G.
2006. Flore analytique du Bénin. Leiden: Backhuys Publishers.
Ali, S.I., Jafri, S.M.H. & El-Gadi, A. (eds.) 1971–1990. Flora of
Libya, 94 vols. Tripoli: Al Faateh University.
APG IV 2016. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classi-
fication for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV.
Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 181: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12385
Arrigoni, P.V. 2006–2015. Flora dell’Isola di Sardegna, vols. 1–6.
Sassari: Delfino.
Association Tela Botanica 2001–. Flore électronique –France métro-
politaine. Montpellier. https://www.tela-botanica.org/flore/france-
metropolitaine/ (accessed 31 Jul 2019).
Aubréville, A. & al. (eds.) 1960–.Flore du Cambodge, du Laos et du
Viêtnam. Paris: Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle.
Aubréville, A. & al. (eds.) 1963–.Flore du Cameroun, vols. 1–39.
Yaoundé: Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche
Scientifique; Paris: Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle.
Aubréville, A., Hallé, N., Letouzey, R., Villiers, J.-F., Floret, J.J.,
Sosef, M.S.M. & al. 1961–.Flore du Gabon,vols.1
–55. Weikers-
heim: Margraf Publishers.
Australian Plant Census [APC] 2005–. IBIS database, Centre for
Australian National Biodiversity Research, Council of Heads of
Australasian Herbaria http://www.chah.gov.au/apc/index/html
(accessed 17 Jul 2019).
Baikov, K.S. (ed.) 2012. Conspectus florae Rossiae Asiaticae: Plantae
vasculares. Novosibirsk: Izdatel’stvo Sibirskogo otdeleniya Ros-
siyskoi akademii nauk.
Barina, Z., Somogyi, G., Pifkó, D. & Rakaj, M. 2018. Checklist of
vascular plants of Albania. Phytotaxa 378(1). Auckland: Magno-
lia Press. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.378.1.1
Barry, J.P. & Celles, J.C. 1991. Flore de Mauritanie. Nouakchott:
Institute Supérieur Scientifique de Nouakchott; Nice: Université
de Nice Sophia-Antiopolis.
Bartolucci, F., Peruzzi, L., Galasso, G., Albano, A., Alessandrini,
A., Ardenghi, N.M.G., Astuti, G., Bacchetta, G., Ballelli, S.,
Banfi, E., Barberis, G., Bernardo, L., Bouvet, D., Bovio, M.,
Cecchi, L., Di Pietro, R., Domina, G., Fascetti, S., Fenu, G.,
Festi, F., Foggi, B., Gallo, L., Gottschlich, G., Gubellini, L.,
Iamonico, D., Iberite, M., Jiménez-Mejías, P., Lattanzi, E.,
Marchetti, D., Martinetto, E., Masin, R.R., Medagli, P.,
Passalacqua, N.G., Peccenini, S., Pennesi, R., Pierini, B.,
Poldini, L., Prosser, F., Raimondo, F.M., Roma-Marzio, F.,
Rosati, L., Santangelo, A., Scoppola, A., Scortegagna, S.,
Selvaggi, A., Selvi, F., Soldano, A., Stinca, A., Wagensommer,
Version of Record 19
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
R.P., Wilhalm, T. & Conti, F. 2018. An updated checklist of the
vascular flora native to Italy. –Pl.Biosyst. 152: 179–303. https://
doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2017.1419996
Belgian Species List 2020. Tracheophyta. http://www.species.be/en/
59170 (accessed on 16 Jul 2020).
Berendsohn, W.G. 2010. Devising the EDIT Platform for Cybertaxon-
omy. Pp. 1–6 in: Nimis, P.L. & Vignes-Lebbe, R. (eds.), Tools for
identifying biodiversity: Progress and problems. Trieste: EUT.
Berendsohn, W.G., Borsch, T., Güntsch, A., Kohlbecker, A.,
Korotkova, N., Luther, K., Müller, A., Plitzner, P. & von
Mering, S. 2018. Using the EDIT Platform for Cybertaxonomy
to prepare and publish a treatment for the Caryophyllales Net-
work: An online synthesis of the Nepenthaceae. Willdenowia 48:
335–344. https://doi.org/10.3372/wi.48.48301
Berhaut, J. 1971–1988. Flore illustrée du Sénégal, 9 vols. Dakar: Gou-
vernement du Sénégal.
Bernal, R., Gradstein, S.R. & Celis, M. (eds.) 2015–. Catálogo de
plantas y líquenes de Colombia. Bogotá: Instituto de Ciencias
Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. http://catalogo
plantasdecolombia.unal.edu.co/en/ (accessed 20 Jul 2019).
Berners-Lee, T. 2005. What HTTP URIs identify. https://www.w3.org/
DesignIssues/HTTP-URI2 (accessed 19 Jul 2019).
BFG [The Brazil Flora Group] 2018. Brazilian Flora 2020: Innova-
tion and collaboration to meet Target 1 of the Global Strategy
for Plant Conservation (GSPC). Rodriguésia 69(4): 1513–1527.
https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-7860201869402
BGCI 2019. ThreatSearch online database. Richmond, U.K.: Botanic
Gardens Conservation International. https://www.bgci.org/threat_
search.php (accessed 21 Jul 2019).
Bingham, M., Willemen, A., Wursten, B.T., Ballings, P. & Hyde,
M.A. 2011–. Flora of Zambia: Home page. https://www.
zambiaflora.com (accessed on 16 Jul 2020).
Bisby, F. 1993. Species diversity knowledge systems: The ILDIS proto-
type for legumes. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 700(1): 159–164.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26316.x
Borsch, T., Hernández-Ledesma, P., Berendsohn, W.G., Flores-
Olvera, H., Ochoterena, H., Zuloaga, F.O., von Mering, S. &
Kilian, N. 2015. An integrative and dynamic approach for mono-
graphing species-rich plant groups –Building the global synthesis
of the angiosperm order Caryophyllales. Perspect. Pl. Ecol. Evol.
Syst. 17(4): 284–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2015.05.003
Borsch, T., Flores-Olvera, H., Zumaya, S. & Müller, K. 2018. Pollen
characters and DNA sequence data converge on a monophyletic
genus Iresine (Amaranthaceae, Caryophyllales) and help to eluci-
date its species diversity. Taxon 67: 944–976. https://doi.org/10.
12705/675.7
Botalista 2019. Botalista: Outil open source pour gérer vos collections
botaniques. https://botalista.community/ (accessed 18 Jul 2019).
Boudet, G., Lebrun, J.-P. & Demange, R. 1986. Catalogue des
plantes vasculaires du Mali. Maisons-Alfort: CIRAD-IEMVT.
Boulos, L. (ed.) 1999–2005. Flora of Egypt, 4 vols. Cairo: Al Haddara
Publishing.
BRAHMS 1989–. BRAHMS Botanical Research and Herbarium Man-
agement System. University of Oxford. https://herbaria.plants.ox.
ac.uk/Bol/ (accessed 17 Jul 2019).
Brako, L. & Zarucchi, J.L. 1993. Catalogue of the flowering plants
and gymnosperms of Peru. Monographs in Systematic Botany
from the Missouri Botanical Garden 45. St. Louis: Missouri
Botanical Garden.
Bredenkamp, C.L. (ed.) 2019. A Flora of the Eastern Cape Province,
3 vols. Strelitzia 41. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity
Institute.
Breitwieser, I., Brownsey, P.J., Nelson, W.A. & Wilton, D.A. (eds.)
2010. Flora of New Zealand Online. http://www.nzflora.info
(accessed 13 Oct 2020).
Brummitt, R.K., Castroviejo, S., Chikuni, A.C., Orchard, A.E.,
Smith, G.F. & Wagner, W.L. 2001. The Species Plantarum
Project, an international collaborative initiative for higher plant
taxonomy. Taxon 50(4): 1217–1230. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1224752
Brunel, F., Hiepko, P. & Scholz, H. (eds.) 1984. Flore analytique du
Togo: Phanérogames. Englera 4. Berlin: Botanischer Garten und
Botanisches Museum Berlin; Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Technische Zusammenarbeit. https://doi.org/10.2307/3776742
Cámera-Leret, R. 2015–. Scratchpads for the Flora of Thailand.
http://floraofthailand.myspecies.info/ (accessed 19 Jul 2019).
Cardoso, D., Särkinen, T., Alexander, S., Amorim, A.M., Bittrich, V.,
Celis, M., Daly, D.C., Fiaschi, P., Funk, V.A., Giacomin, L.L.,
Goldenberg, R., Heiden, G., Iganci, J., Kelloff, C.L., Knapp,
S., Cavalcante de Lima, H., Machado, A.F.P., Manoel dos
Santos, R., Mello-Silva, R., Michelangeli, F.A., Mitchell, J.,
Moonlight, P., Rodrigues de Moraes, P.L., Mori, S.A.,
Sacramento Nunes, T., Pennington, T.D., Pirani, J.R., Prance,
G.T., Paganucci de Queiroz, L., Rapini, A., Riina, R., Vargas
Rincon, C.A., Roque, N., Shimizu, G., Sobral, M., Stehmann,
J.R., Stevens, W.D., Taylor, C.M., Trovó, M., Van den Berg,
C., Van der Werff, H., Lage Viana, P., Zartman, C.E. &
Forzza, R.C. 2017. Amazon plant diversity revealed by a taxo-
nomically verified species list. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
114: 10695–10700. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706756114
Carisso, L., Fernandes, A. & al. (eds.) 1937–1977. Conspectus florae
Angolensis. 6 vols. Coimbra: Instituto Botanico de Coimbra; Lis-
bon: Junta de Investigacões Científicas do Ultramar.
Caryophyllales Network 2015–. A global synthesis of species diver-
sity in the angiosperm order Caryophyllales. Published on the
Internet http://caryophyllales.org/ (accessed 24 Jun 2020).
Castroviejo, S. (coord. gen.) 1986–2018. Flora iberica, vols. 1–18,
20, 21. Madrid: Real Jardín Botánico, CSIC. http://www.florai
berica.es/ (accessed 31 Jul 2019).
Catarino, L., Martins, E.S., Pinto Basto, M.F. & Diniz, M.A. 2008
An annotated checklist of the vascular flora of Guinea Bisseau
(West Africa). Blumea 53: 1–222. https://doi.org/10.3767/00065
1908X608179
César, J. & Chatelain, C. 2019. Flore illustrée du Tchad. Genève:
Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève.
Chatelain, C., Medjahdi, B. & Benhouhou, S. 2018–. Flore du
Maghreb. http://efloramaghreb.org (accessed 20 Jul 2019).
Cheek, M. & Jebb, M.H.P. 2001. Flora Malesiana, ser. 1, vol. 15,
Nepenthaceae. Leiden: Nationaal Herbarium Nederland.
Cherepanov, S.K. 1973. Additamenta et corrigenda ad Floram URSS
(tomi 1–30). Leningrad Nauka.
Cherepanov, S.K. 1995. Vascular plants of Russia and adjacent states
(within the former USSR). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Christenhusz, M.J.M. & Byng, J.W. 2016. The number of known
plant species in the world and its annual increase. Phytotaxa
261(3): 201–217. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.261.3.1
Ciardelli, P., Kelbert, P., Kohlbecker, A., Hoffmann, N., Güntsch, A.
& Berendsohn, W.G. 2009: The EDIT Platform for Cybertaxon-
omy and the taxonomic workflow: Selected components. Lecture
Notes in Informatics 154: 625–638.
Ciocârlan, V. 2009. Flora ilustratăa României: Pteridophyta et Sper-
matophyta, 3rd ed. Bucharest: Ceres.
Codd, L.E., De Winter, B. & Rycroft, H.B. 1963–2005. Flora of
southern Africa, 28 vols. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Convention on Biological Diversity 2010. [Decision] X/17: Consoli-
dated update of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation
2011–2020. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12283 (accessed
15 Feb 2017).
Convention on Biological Diversity 2012. The Global Strategy for Plant
Conservation: 2011–2020. Richmond, U.K.: Botanic Gardens
Conservation International. https://www.bgci.org/files/Plants2020/
GSPCbrochure/gspc_english.pdf (retrieved 30 Mar 2017).
20 Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
Convention on Biological Diversity 2014. Report of the Eleventh
Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Bio-
logical Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/kb/record/meetingDocument/
95082?Subject=CBD (accessed 13 Jun 2018).
Convention on Biological Diversity 2018. Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ (accessed 24 Jun 2020).
Convention on Biological Diversity 2020. Zero-draft of the post-2020
global biodiversity framework. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/efb0/
1f84/a892b98d2982a829962b6371/wg2020-02-03-en.pdf
Correll, D.S. & Correll, H.B. 1982. Flora of the Bahama Archipelago.
Vaduz: J. Cramer.
Coste, H.J. 1900–1906. Flore descriptive et illustrée de la France, de la
Corse et des contrées limitrophes, 3 vols. Paris: Paul Klincksieck.
https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/idurl/1/14892, https://bibdigital.
rjb.csic.es/idurl/1/14892, https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/idurl/1/
14893
Crosby, M.R., Magill, R.E., Allen, B. & He, S. 2000. A checklist of
the mosses. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.
mobot.org/MOBOT/tropicos/most/checklist.shtml (accessed 17
Jul 2019).
Danihelka, J., Chrtek, J., Jr. & Kaplan, Z. 2012. Checklist of vascu-
lar plants of the Czech Republic. Preslia 84: 647–811. http://
www.preslia.cz/P123Danihelka.pdf
Darbyshire, I., Kordofami, M., Farag, I., Candiga, R. & Pickering,
H. 2015. The plants of Sudan and South Sudan: An annotated
checklist. Richmond, U.K.: Kew Publishing.
D’Arcy, W.G. 1987. Flora of Panama: Checklist and index. Mono-
graphs in Systematic Botany fromt the Missouri Botanical Garden
17. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden.
Davidse, G., Sousa S., M., Knapp, S. & Chiang, F. (eds.) 1994–.
Flora Mesoamericana, vols. 1, 2, 4–6. St. Louis: Missouri Bo-
tanical Garden; México: Instituto de Biología, UNAM; London:
The Natural History Museum. https://www.tropicos.org/project/FM
(accessed 20 Jul 2019).
Dávila Aranda, P., Villaseñor Ríos, J.L., Medina Lemos, R. &
Téllez Valdés, O. (eds.) 1993–.Flora del Valle de Tehuacán-Cui-
catlán, fasc. 1–110. México: Instituto de Biología, Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México. http://www.ibiologia.unam.mx/
barra/publicaciones/floras_tehuacan/florastehucan.htm (accessed
20 Jul 2019).
Davis, P.H. (ed.) 1965–1985. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean
Islands, 9 vols. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Dayrat, B. 2005. Towards integrative taxonomy. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 85:
407–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00503.x
Demissew, S. 2014. Overview of the Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea: The
long road to a completion. Ethiop. J. Biol. Sci. 13: 29–35.
Dimopoulos, P., Raus, T., Bergmeier, E., Constantinidis, T., Iatrou,
G., Kokkini, S., Strid, A. & Tzanoudakis, D. 2013. Vascular
plants of Greece: An annotated checklist. Englera 31. Berlin:
Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin; Athens: Hellenic
Botanical Society.
Dröge, G., Barker, K., Astrin, J.J., Bartels, P., Butler, C., Cantrill,
D., Coddington, J., Forest, F., Gemeinholzer, B., Hobern, D.,
Mackenzie-Dodds, J., ÓTuama E., Petersen, G., Sanjur, O.,
Schindel, D. & Seberg, O. 2013. The Global Genome Biodiver-
sity Network (GGBN) data Portal. Nucl. Acids Res. 42(D1):
D607–D612. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt928
Duistermaat, L. 2020. Heukels’Flora van Nederland [Heukels’Flora
of the Netherlands], 24th ed. Leiden: Noordhoff.
EDIT 2019. EDIT Platform for Cybertaxonomy. Berlin: Botanic Garden
and Botanical Museum Berlin. https://cybertaxonomy.eu/ (accessed
17 Jul 2019).
Elven, R. (ed.) 2005. Norsk Flora, 7th ed. Oslo: Norske Samlaget.
Erdağ, A. & Kürschner, H. (eds.) 2017. Türkiye Bitkileri Listesi
Karayosunları[A checklist of the Flora of Turkey, bryophtes].
Istanbul: Ali Nihat Gökyiğit VakfıYayını.
Euro+Med 2006–. Euro+Med PlantBase –The information resource
for Euro-Mediterranean plant diversity. Berlin: Botanic Garden
and Botanical Museum Berlin. http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlus
Med/ (accessed 14 Jul 2020).
Fedorov, A.A. & Tzvelev, N.N. (eds.) 1974–1989. Flora partis Euro-
paeae URSS, 8 vols. Leningrad: Nauka.
Fedtschenko, B.A., Popov, M.G. & Schischkin, B.K. (eds.) 1932–
1960. Flora Turkmenii [Flora of Turkmenia], 7 vols. Leningrad
& Ashkhabat. [in Russian]
Fennane, M., Ibn Tattou, M., Mathez, J., Ouyahya, A. & El Oualidi,
J. (éds.) 1999–2015. Flore pratique du Maroc: Manuel de détermi-
nation des plantes vasculaires, 3 vols. Rabat: Institut Scientifique.
Figueiredo, E. & Smith, G.F. 2008. Plants of Angola. Strelitzia 22.
Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute.
Flora de Colombia Editorial Committee 1983–.Flora de Colombia,
vols. 1–31. Bogotá: Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad
Nacional de Colombia. Also available online http://www.biovirtual.
unal.edu.co/floradecolombia/en/ (accessed 28 Jul 2019).
Flora do Brasil 2016–. Flora do Brasil 2020 under construction. Rio de
Janeiro: Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. http://floradobrasil.
jbrj.gov.br/ (accessed 20 Jul 2019).
Flora of Australia 1981–.Flora of Australia, vols. 1–4, 8, 11, 12, 16–
19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 35, 37, 39, 43–46, 48–51, 54–58. Canberra:
Australian Biological Resources Study. http://www.ausflora.org.
au (accessed 17 Jul 2019).
Flora of Australia 2019. About Flora of Australia. In: Flora of Australia.
Canberra: Australian Biological Resources Study. https://profiles.
ala.org.au/opus/foa/about (accessed 17 Jul 2019).
Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.) 1993–.Flora of
North America North of Mexico, vols. 1–9, 12, 17–19. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Flora Zambesiaca Managing Committee 1950–.Flora Zambesiaca,
vols. 1–45. Richmond, U.K.: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Flore d’Afrique Centrale Editorial Committee 1948–.Flore d’Afrique
Centrale: Spermatophytes, vols. 1–10; vols: 1–35 [nouvelle série].
Meise: Jardin botanique de Meise.
Fousseni, F., Madjouma, K., Dieudonne, G.Y.M., Li, P.D., Hai, Z.X.
& Koffi, A. 2014. Global overview of flora and plant diversity in
Togo (West Africa). J. Life Sci. Res. 1: 24–30.
Frodin, D.G. 2001. Guide to standard Floras of the world, 2nd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511541803
Funk, V.A., Hollowell, T.H., Berry, P.E., Kelloff, C.L. & Alexander,
S. 2007. Checklist of the plants of the Guiana Shield (Venezuela:
Amazonas, Bolívar, Delta Amacuro; Guyana, Surinam, French
Guiana). Contributions from the United States National Herbar-
ium 55. Washington, D.C.: National Museum of Natural History.
Garnett, T. & Christidis, L. 2017. Taxonomy anarchy hampers con-
servation. Nature 546: 25–27. https://doi.org10.1038/546025a
Garnett, T., Christidis, L., Conix, S., Costello, M.J., Zachos, F.E.,
Bánki, O.S., Bao, Y., Barik, S.K., Buckeridge, J.S., Hobern,
D., Lien, A., Montgomery, N., Nikolaeva, S., Pyle, R.L.,
Thomson, S.A., Van Dijk, P.P., Whalen, A., Zhang, Z.-Q. &
Thiele, K.R. 2020. Principles for creating a single authoritative
list of the world’s species. PloS Biol. 18(7): e3000736. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000736
GBIF [Global Biodiversity Information Facility] 2018. Big data for
biodiversity: GBIF.org surpasses 1 billion species occurrences.
https://www.gbif.org/news/5BesWzmwqQ4U84suqWyOQy/big-
data-for-biodiversity-gbiforg-surpasses-1-billion-species-
occurrences. (accessed 26 Sep 2018).
Gleason, H.A. & Cronquist, A. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of
northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Princeton:
Van Nostrand.
Gómez-Pompa, A. & Sosa, V. (eds.) 1978–.Flora de Veracruz, fasc.
1–166. Xalapa: Instituto de Ecología A.C. http://www1.inecol.
edu.mx/publicaciones/LISTADO_FLOVER.htm (accessed 20 Jul
2019).
Version of Record 21
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
Görts-Van-Rijn, A.R.A., Jansen-Jacobs, M., Mota de Oliveira, S.
(eds.) 1985–.Flora of the Guianas, fasc. 1–36 (vascular plants
and bryophyes). Königstein: Koeltz; Richmond, U.K.: Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Grayum, M.H., Hammel, B.E., Troyo, S. & Zamora, N. 2004. His-
tory. Pp. 1–50 in: Hammel, B.E., Grayum, M.H., Herrera, C. &
Zamora, N. (eds.), Manual de plantas de Costa Rica. Monographs
in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden 97. St.
Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden.
Greuter, W. & Rankin, R. 2017. Plantas vasculares de Cuba: Inven-
tario preliminar, 2nd ed. Berlin: Botanischer Garten & Botanisches
Museum Berlin; Havana: Jardín Botánico Nacional, Universidad de
La Habana. https://doi.org/10.3372/cubalist.2017.1
Greuter, W., Rankin, R. & Manitz, H. (eds.) 1998–.Flora de la
República de Cuba, vols. 1–25. Königstein: Koeltz Scientific
Books [to 2016]; Berlin: Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum
Berlin.
Grierson, A.J.C. & Long, D.G. [& al.] 1983–2002. Flora of Bhutan,
3 vols. Edinburgh: Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh.
Güner, A. & Ekim, T. (eds.) 2014. Resimli Türkiye Florası, vol. 1.
Istanbul: Ali Nihat Gökyiğit Vakfı, Flora Aras¸tırmalarıDerneği
and Türkiye İs¸ BankasıKültür Yayınlarıyayını.
Güner, A., Aslan, S., Ekim, T., Vural, M. & Babaç, M.T. (eds.) 2012.
Türkiye Bitkileri Listesi DamarlıBitkiler [A Checklist of the Flora
of Turkey, Vascular Plants]. Istanbul: Nezahat Gokyigit Botanic
Garden & Flora Research Society.
Güner, A., Kandemir, A., Menemen, Y., Yıldırım, H., Aslan, S.,
Eks¸i, G., Güner, I. & Çimen, A.Ö. (eds.) 2018. Resimli Türkiye
Florası, vol. 2. Istanbul: ANG VakfıNezahat Gökyiğit Botanik
Bahçesi Yayınları.
Gwinn, N.E. & Rinaldo, C. 2009. The Biodiversity Heritage Library:
Sharing biodiversity with the world. IFLA Journal 35: 25–34.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035208102032
Hagedorn, G., Mietchen, D., Morris, R.A., Agosti, D., Penev, L.,
Berendsohn, W.G. & Hobern, D. 2011. Creative Commons
licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the
re-use of biodiversity information. ZooKeys 150: 127–149. https://
doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.150.2189
Hajra, P.K. & al. (eds.) 1995–.Flora of India, vols. 1–5, 12, 13, 23.
Calcutta: Botanical Survey of India.
Hamann, T.D., Müller, A., Roos, M.C., Sosef, M. & Smets, E. 2014.
Detailed mark-up of semi-monographic legacy taxonomic works
using FlorML. Taxon 63: 377–393. https://doi.org/10.12705/
632.11
Hammel, B.E., Grayum, M.H., Herrera, C. & Zamora, N. (eds.)
2003–2020. Manual de plantas de Costa Rica, vols. 1–6 [Seed
plants]. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden.
Hand, R., Hadjikyriakou, G.N. & Christodoulou, C.S. (eds.) 2011–.
Flora of Cyprus –A dynamic checklist. http://www.flora-of-
cyprus.eu/ (accessed 28 Aug 2020).
Harling, G., Sparre, B., Andersson, L., Persson, C., Eriksson, R.,
Ståhl, B. & Romoleroux, K. (eds.) 1973–.Flora of Ecuador,
vols. 1–95. Gothenburg: Department of Biological and Environ-
mental Sciences, University of Gothenburg; Quito: Pontifical
Catholic University of Ecuador.
Harvey, W.H. & Sonder, O.W. 1859–1865. Flora Capensis: Being
a description of the plants of the Cape Colony, Caffraria and
Natal, vols. 1–3. Dublin: Hodges, etc. https://doi.org/10.5962/
bhl.title.821
Hassler, M. 2020. World ferns: Checklist of ferns and lycophytes of the
world. In: Roskov, Y., Abucay, L., Orrell, T., Nicolson, D., Kunze,
T., Flann, C., Bailly, N., Kirk, P., Bourgoin, T., DeWalt, R.E.,
Decock, W. & De Wever, A. (eds.), Species 2000 & ITIS cata-
logue of life, www.catalogueoflife.org/col. Naturalis, Leiden: Spe-
cies 2000.
Hegi, G., Conert, H.J. & al. (eds.) 1906–2016. Illustrierte Flora
von Mitteleuropa, 1st–3rd ed., 7 vols. Munich: Lehmann, Hanser;
Berlin: Blackwell, Parey; Vienna: Pichler; Jena: Weissdorn-
Verlag.
Henning, T., Plitzner, P., Güntsch, A., Berendsohn, W.G., Müller, A.
& Kilian, N. 2018. Building compatible and dynamic character
matrices –Current and future use of specimen-based character data.
Bot. Lett. 165(3–4): 352–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/23818107.
2018.1452791
Hernández-Ledesma, P., Berendsohn, W.G., Borsch, T., Mering, S.
von, Akhani, H., Arias, S., Castañeda-Noa, I., Eggli, U.,
Eriksson, R., Flores-Olvera, H., Fuentes-Bazán, S., Kadereit,
G., Klak, C., Korotkova, N., Nyffeler, R., Ocampo, G.,
Ochoterena, H., Oxelman, B., Rabeler, R.K., Sanchez, A.,
Schlumpberger, B.O. & Uotila, P. 2015. A taxonomic backbone
for the global synthesis of species diversity in the angiosperm
order Caryophyllales. Willdenowia 45: 281–383. https://doi.org/
10.3372/wi.45.45301
Hill, A.W. (ed.) 1933. Flora Capensis: Being a description of the plants
of the Cape Colony, Caffraria and Port Natal (and neighbouring
territories), vol. 5, sect. 2 (suppl.), Gymnospermae. Ashford: L.
Reeve & Co. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.821
Hobern, D., Baptiste, B., Copas, K., Guralnick, R., Hahn, A., Van
Huis, E., Kim, E., McGeoch, M., Naicker, I., Navarro, L.,
Noesgaard, D., Price, M., Rodrigues, A., Schigel, D.,
Sheffield, C. & Wieczorek, J. 2019. Connecting data and exper-
tise: A new alliance for biodiversity knowledge. Biodivers. Data J.
7: e33679. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.7.e33679
Hoch, P. 2000–. Pakistan Plant Database. http://www.tropicos.org/
Project/Pakistan (accessed 19 Jul 2019).
Hokche, O., Berry, P.E. & Huber, O. (eds.) 2008. Nuevo catálogo de
la flora vascular de Venezuela. Caracas: Fundación Instituto Botá-
nico de Venezuela.
Hong, D.-Y. (ed.) 2015–2017. Flora of Pan-Himalaya, vols. 30, 47,
48(2), 48(3). Beijing: Science Press; Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Hooker, J.D. 1875–1897. Flora of British India. London: Reeve & Co.
https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.678
Howard, R.A. 1974–1989. Flora of the Lesser Antilles, 6 vols. Jamaica
Plain: Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University.
Huang, T.-C. (ed.) 1993–2003. Flora of Taiwan, 2nd ed., 6 vols.
Taipei: Committee of the Flora of Taiwan.
Hutchinson, J. & Dalziel, J.M. 1927–1936. Flora of west tropical
Africa, 1st ed. London: Crown Agents.
Hutchinson, J. & Dalziel, J.M. 1954–1972. Flora of west tropical
Africa, 2nd ed. Ed. & Rev. R.W.J. Keay & N. Hepper. London:
Crown Agents.
Hutchinson, J. & Dalziel, J.M. 2014. Flora of west tropical Africa,
2nd ed. Ed. & Rev. R.W.J. Keay & N. Hepper; e-book ed. with
annot. from African Plants Database. London: Crown Agents.
https://archive.org/details/FloraOfWestTropi00hutc
Hyde, M.A., Wursten, B.T., Ballings, P. & Coates Palgrave, M.
2002–. Flora of Zimbabwe: Home page. https://www.zimbabwe
flora.co.zw (accessed 10 Jul 2020).
Hyde, M.A., Wursten, B.T., Ballings, P. & Coates Palgrave, M.
2007–. Flora of Mozambique: Home page. https://www.mozam
biqueflora.com (accessed 10 Jul 2020).
IPNI 2020. The International Plant Names Index. The Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew, Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries and
Australian National Botanic Gardens. http://www.ipni.org (accessed
5 Jun 2020)
IUCN 2019. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
2019-1. International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources. http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed 31 Jul
2019).
Iwatsuki, K., Yamazaki, T., Boufford, D.E. & Ohba, H. (eds.)
1993–.Flora of Japan, vols. 1–7. Tokyo: Kodansha.
Jackson, M.D., Scherz, M.D. & Zona, S. 2017. Taxonomy is not
beholden to its dependencies: A rebuttal to Garnett and Christidis
22 Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
(2017). PeerJ Preprints 5: e3060v1. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.
preprints.3060v1
Jeanmonod, D. & Gamisans, J. 2013. Flora Corsica, 2nd ed. Bulletin
de la Société Botanique du Centre-Ouest, n.s., 39. Jarnac: Société
Botanique du Centre Ouest.
Jebb, M.H.P. & Cheek, M.R. 1997. A skeletal revision of Nepenthes
(Nepenthaceae). Blumea 42(1): 1–106.
Jonsell, B. & al. (eds.) 2000–2010. Flora Nordica, vols. 1, 2, 6. Stock-
holm: Department of Phanerogam Botany Swedish Museum of
Natural History.
Jordanov, D. (ed.) 1963–.Flora Reipublicae Bulgaricae, vols. 1–11.
Sofija: Izdatel’stvo na bulgarskata akademija na naukite.
Jørgensen, P.M. & León-Yánez, S. (eds.) 1999. Catalogue of the vas-
cular plants of Ecuador. Monographs in Systematic Botany of
the Missouri Botanical Garden 75. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical
Garden.
Jørgensen, P.M., Nee, M.H. & Beck, S.G. 2014. Catálogo de las plan-
tas vasculares de Bolivia. Monographs in Systematic Botany of
the Missouri Botanical Garden 127. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical
Garden.
Josifovic, M. (ed.) 1970–1986. Flora SR Srbije, 1st ed., vols. 1–10;
1992–2012. 2nd ed., vols. 1–2. Belgrade: Srpska Akademija Nauka
Utmenosti.
Kamelin, R.V. & Khassanov, F.O. (eds.) 2015. Conspectus florae
Asiae Mediae, vol. 11. Tashkent: Fan. [in Russian]
Kaplan, Z. (ed.) 2019. Klícˇke kveˇteneˇČeské republiky, 2nd ed. Praha:
Academia.
Karjagin, I.I., Isaev, Y.M., Prilipko, L.I., Rzazade, R.Y., Akhundov,
G.F., Kadyrov, G.M., Askerova, R.K. & Sofiyeva, R.M. (eds.)
1950–1961. Flora Azerbajdžana, 8 vols. Baku: Izdatel’stvo Aka-
demii nauk Azerbaidzhanskoi SSR. [in Russian]
Ketskoveli, N.N. & Gagnidze, R.I. (eds.) 1971–2011. Sakartvelos flora
[Flora of Georgia], 16 vols. Tbilisi: Metsniereba. [in Georgian]
Kharkevich, S.S. (ed.) 1985–1996. Plantae vasculares Orientis
Extremi Sovietici, 8 vols. Leningrad (St. Petersburg): Nauka. [in
Russian]
Kilian, N., Henning, T., Plitzner, P., Müller, A., Güntsch, A., Stöver,
B.C., Müller, K.F., Berendsohn, W.G. & Borsch, T. 2015. Sam-
ple data processing in an additive and reproducible taxonomic
workflow by using character data persistently linked to preserved
individual specimens. Database 2015: bav094. https://doi.org/10.
1093/database/bav094
Kilian, N., Galbany-Casals, M., Sommerer, R., Oberprieler, C.,
Smissen, R., Miller, A. & Rabe, K. 2017. Systematics of Libin-
hania, a new endemic genus of Gnaphalieae (Asteraceae) from
the Socotra archipelago (Yemen), inferred from plastid, low-copy
nuclear and nuclear ribosomal DNA loci. Bot. J. Linn Soc. 183:
373–412. https://doi.org/10.1093/botlinnean/bow013
Kindt, R. 2020. WorldFlora: An R package for exact and fuzzy match-
ing of plant names against the World Flora Online taxonomic
backbone data. Applic. Pl. Sci. 8(9): e11388. https://doi.org/10.
1002/aps3.11388
Komarov, V.L. & al. (eds.) 1934–1964. Flora of the U.S.S.R., 30 vols.
Leningrad [Moscow & Leningrad]: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk
SSSR.
Korovin, E.P., Vvedensky, A.I. & Shreder, R.R. (eds.) 1941–1962.
Flora Uzbekistana, 6 vols. Tashkent: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk
Uzbekskoi SSR. [in Russian]
Kozhevnikov, A.E. & Rudyka, E.G. 2002. O vosmitomtom izdanii
«Sosudistye rasteniya sovetskogo Dal’nego Vostoka» [About the
eight-volume series «Vascular plants of the Soviet Far East»].
Pp. 6–9 in: Kozhevnikov, A.E. & Probatova, N.S. (eds.), Flora
of the Russian Far East: Alphabetical indexes to the «Vascular
plants of the Soviet Far East», vols. 1–8 (1985–1996). Vladivos-
tok: Dal’nauka.
Kress, W.J., DeFilipps, R.A., Farr, E. & Daw Yin, Y.K. 2003. A
checklist of the trees, shrubs, herbs, and climbers of Myanmar
(Revised from the original works by J.H. Lace, R. Rodger, H.G.
Hundley, and U Chit Ko Ko on the “List of Trees, Shrubs, Herbs
and Principal Climbers, etc. Recorded from Burma”).Contribu-
tions from the United States National Herbarium 45. Washington,
D.C.: National Museum of Natural History. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/23493222
Kurtto, A., Lampinen, R., Piirainen, M. & Uotila, P. 2019. Checklist
of the vascular plants of Finland. Suomen putkilokasvien luettelo.
Norrlinia 34. Helsinki: Finnish Museum of Natural History.
https://helda.helsinki.fi//bitstream/handle/10138/307238/
checklist_plants_finland.pdf
Lambinon, J. & Verloove, F. (eds.) 2015. Nouvelle flore de la Bel-
gique, du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, du Nord de la France
et des régions voisines, 6th ed. Meise: Jardin botanique national
de Belgique.
Lasser, T. (ed.) 1968–1984. Flora de Venezuela, 13 vols. Caracas:
Instituto Botanico.
Lauber, K., Wager, G. & Gygax, A. 2018. Flora Helvetica: Illustrierte
Flora der Schweiz. Bern: Haupt.
Le Roux, M.M., Wilkin, P., Balkwill, K., Boatwright, J.S., Bytebier, B.,
Filer, D., Klak, C., Klopper, R.R., Koekemoer, M., Livermore, L.,
Lubke, R., Magee, A.R., Manning, J.C., Paton, A., Pearce, T.,
Slingsby,J.,VanWyk,B.-E.,Victor,J.E.&VonStaden,L.
2017. Producing a plant diversity portal for South Africa. Taxo n
66(2): 421–431. https://doi.org/10.12705/662.9
Liogier, A.H. 1985–1997. Descriptive flora of Puerto Rico and adja-
cent islands: Spermatophyta, 5 vols. Río Piedras: Editorial de la
Universidad de Puerto Rico.
LPWG [Legume Phylogeny Working Group] 2017. A new subfamily
classification of the Leguminosae based on a taxonomically com-
prehensive phylogeny. Taxon 66: 44–77. https://doi.org/10.12705/
661.3
MacBride, J.F. 1936–1960. Flora of Peru, 15 vols. Chicago: Field
Museum of Natural History.
Madagascar Catalogue 2012–. Catalogue of the plants of Madagascar.
St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.tropicos.org/
Project/Madagascar (accessed Aug 2020).
Maire, R. & al. 1952–1987. Flore de l’Afrique du Nord, 16 vols. Paris:
Lechevalier.
Malyshev, L.I., Peshkova, G.A., Krasnoborov, I.M. & Polozyi, A.V.
(eds.) 1987–2003. Flora Sibiriae, 14 vols. Novosibirsk: Nauka.
[in Russian]
Manning, J. & Goldblatt, P. (eds.) 2012. Plants of the Greater Cape
Floristic Region, vol. 1, The Core Cape flora. Strelitzia 29.
Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute.
Marhold, K. & Hindák, F. 1998. Checklist of non-vascular and vascu-
lar plants of Slovakia. Bratislava: VEDK.
Marticorena, C. & Rodríguez, R. (eds.) 1995–2003. Flora de Chile,
4 vols. Concepción: Universidad de Concepción.
Martincic, A. (ed.) 1999. Mala Flora Slovenije, 3rd ed. Ljubljana: Teh-
niska zalozba Slovenije.
Martius, K.F.P. & al. (eds.) 1840–1906. Flora Brasiliensis, 15 vols.
Munich & Leipzig. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.454
Middleton, D.J. 2003. Progress on the Flora of Thailand.Telopea
10(1): 33–42. https://doi.org/10.7751/telopea20035603
Miller, A.G., Cope, T.A. & Nyberg, J.A. 1996–.Flora of the Arabian
Peninsula and Socotra, vols. 1–2. Edinburgh: University of Edin-
burgh Press.
Mosyakin, S.L. & Fedoronchuk, M.M. 1999. Vascular plants of
Ukraine: A nomenclatural checklist. Kiev: National Academy of
Sciences of Ukraine.
Nakutsrishvili, G. & Churadze, M. (eds.) 2018. Nomenclatural
checklist of Flora of Georgia, 2nd ed. Tbilisi: Ilia State University,
Institute of Botany.
Nasir, E., Ali, S.I.& Qaiser, M. (eds.) 1970–.Flora of Pakistan. Kara-
chi: Institute of Plant Conservation, University of Karachi; St.
Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press.
Version of Record 23
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
Nederlands Soortenregister [The Dutch Species Register] 2020.
http://www.nederlandsesoorten.nl (accessed 16 Jul 2020).
Nic Lughadha, E., Govaerts, R., Belyaeva, I., Black, N., Lindon, H.,
Allkin, R., Magill, R.E. & Nicolson, N. 2016. Counting counts:
Revised estimates of numbers of accepted species of flowering
plants, seed plants, vascular plants and land plants with a review
of other recent estimates. Phytotaxa 272(1): 82—88. https://doi.
org/10.11646/phytotaxa.272.1.5
Niketić, M. & Tomović, G. (eds.) 2018. Kritichka lista vrsta
vaskularie flore srbije [An annotated checklist of vascular flora
of Serbia], vol. 1. Belgrade: Srpska Akademija Nauka Utmenosti.
Nikolić, T. (ed.) 1994–2000. Index Florae Croaticae, 3 vols. Natura
Croatica 3, Suppl. 2; 6, suppl. 1; 9, suppl. 1. Zagreb: Croatian
Natural History Museum.
Ovczinnikov, P.N. (ed.) 1957–1991. Flora Tadzhikskoi SSR [Flora of
Tajik SSR], 10 vols. Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii
nauk SSSR; Nauka. [in Russian]
Palese, R., Boillat, C. & Loizeau, P.-A. 2019. World Flora Online
(WFO) –Quality control workflow for an evolving taxonomic
backbone. Conference abstract. Biodivers. Inform. Sci. Standards
3: e35307. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.3.35307
Parfenov, V.I. (ed.) 2009–2017. Flora Belarusi: Sosudiatye rasteniya
[Flora of Belarus: Vascular plants], vols. 1–3. Minsk: Belaruskaya
Navuka. [in Russian]
Park, C.-W. (ed.) 2015–.Flora of Korea. Incheon: National Institute of
Biological Resources.
Parnell, J.A.N. & Curtis, T.G.F. 2012. Webb’s An Irish Flora. Cork:
University Press.
Parnell, J.A.N., Simpson, D.A., Moat, J., Kirkup, D.W.,
Chantaranothai, P., Boyce, P.C., Bygrave, P., Dransfield, S.,
Jebb, M.H.P., Macklin, J., Meade, C., Middleton, D.J.,
Muasya, A.M., Prajaksood, A., Pendry, C.A., Pooma, R.,
Suddee, S. & Wilkin, P. 2003. Plant collecting spread and densi-
ties: Their potential impact on biogeographical studies in
Thailand. J. Biogeogr. 30: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2699.2003.00828.x
Paton, A.J., Brummit, N., Govaerts, R., Harman, K., Hinchcliffe,
S., Allkin, B. & Nic Lughadha, E. 2008. Towards target 1 of
the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation: A working list of all
known plant species –progress and prospects. Taxon 57: 602–611.
Patterson, D.J., Cooper, J., Kirk, P.M. & Remsen, D.P. 2010. Names
are key to the big new biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25: 686–691.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.09.004
Patterson, D., Mozzherin, D., Shorthouse, D. & Thessen, A. 2016.
Challenges with using names to link digital biodiversity information.
Biodivers. Data J. 4: e8080. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e8080
Pavlov, V.V. (ed.) 1956–1966. Flora Kazakhstana, 9 vols. Alma-Ata:
Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk Kazakhskoi SSR. [in Russian]
Pelser, P.B., Barcelona, J.F. & Nickrent, D.L. 2011–.Co’s digital Flora
of the Philippines. http://www.philippineplants.org (accessed 5 Jun
2020).
Pessoa, E. & Alves, M. 2019. Taxonomic revision of Campylocentrum
sect. Laevigatum E.M. Pessoa & M.W. Chase (Orchidaceae-Van-
deae-Angraecinae). Syst. Bot. 44: 115–132. https://doi.org/10.
1600/036364419X697967
Peyre de Fabrégues, B. & Lebrun, J.-P. 1976. Catalogue des plants
vasculaires du Niger. Maisons-Alfort: Institut Elvage & Medicine
Veterinaire du Pays Tropicaux.
Ph:
am Hoàng Hộ1999–.Cây cỏViệt Nam –An illustrated flora of
Vietnam, vols. 1–3. Ho Chi Minh City: Nhà-xuât-ban-Tre.
Pignatti, S. 2017–2018. Flora d’Italia, 2nd ed., 4 vols. Milano: Edagri-
cole –Edizioni Agricole die New Business Media.
Pottier-Alapetite, G. 1979–1981. Flore de la Tunisie, 2 vols. Tunis:
Publications scientifiques tunisiennes, programme flore et végéta-
tion tunisiennes.
Prance, G.T. 1992. The Species Plantarum Project. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 109:
569–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.1992.tb01451.x
Ranwashe, F. & Le Roux, M.M. 2019. The e-Flora of South Africa –
Restructuring data to comply with Darwin Core standards for
inclusion into the World Flora Online. Biodivers. Inform. Sci.
Standards 3: e35191. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.3.35191
Rechinger, K.H. 1963–2016. Flora Iranica, 178 vols. Graz: Akade-
mische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt.
Retief, E. & Herman, P.P.J. 1997. Plants of the northern provinces
of South Africa: Keys and diagnostic characters. Strelitzia 6.
Pretoria: National Botanical Institute.
Retief, E. & Meyer, N.L. (eds.) 2017. Plants of the Free State: Inven-
tory and identification guide. Strelitzia 38. Pretoria: South African
National Biodiversity Institute.
Robertson, T., Döring, M., Guralnick, R., Bloom, D., Wieczorek, J.,
Braak, K., Otegui, J., Russell, L. & Desmet, P. 2014. The GBIF
integrated publishing toolkit: Facilitating the efficient publishing
of biodiversity data on the internet. PLoS One 9(8): e102623.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102623
Roos, M.C., Berendsohn, W.G., Dessein, S., Hamann, T.,
Hoffmann, N., Hovenkamp, P., Janssen, T., Kirkup, D., De
Kok, R., Sierra, S.E.C., Smets, E., Webb, C. & Van Welzen,
P.C. 2011. e-Flora Malesiana: State of the art and perspectives.
Gard. Bull.Singapore 63(1–2): 189–195.
Roskov, Y., Ower, G., Orrell, T., Nicolson, D., Bailly, N., Kirk, P.M.,
Bourgoin, T., DeWalt, R.E., Decock, W., Van Nieukerken, E.,
Zarucchi, J. & Penev, L. (eds.) 2019. Species 2000 & ITIS
Catalogue of Life, 2019 annual checklist. Leiden: Species 2000
Naturalis. http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2019
(accessed 18 Jul 2019).
Rzedowski, J. & Calderón de Rzedowski, G. (eds.) 1991–.Flora del
Bajío y de regiones adyacentes, fasc. 1–209. Pátzcuaro: Instituto
de Ecología A.C., Centro Regional del Bajío. http://inecolbajio.
inecol.mx/floradelbajio/index.php/fasciculos/publicados
(accessed 20 Jul 2019).
Salimov, R.A., Garakhani, P.K. & Aliyeva, Z.S. 2019. Vascular
plants of Azerbaijan: A nomenclatural checklist of nonflowering
plants. Baku: CBS Polygraphic Production.
SANBI [South African National Biodiversity Institute] 2016. Botani-
cal Database of Southern Africa (BODATSA). Pretoria: South Afri-
can National Biodiversity Institute. http://posa.sanbi.org/ (accessed
17 Jul 2019).
SANPC [South African National Plant Checklist] 2019. http://
newposa.sanbi.org/ (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
Santarsiero, A. 2013. eMonocot: A successful virtual community.
TDWG Biodiversity Information Standards Conference, Florence
2013. Presentations. https://static.tdwg.org/conferences/2013/
presentations/Santarsiero_eMonocot.pdf (accessed 18 Jul 2019).
Santisuk, T., Balslev, H. & Chayamarit, K. [initially Smitinand, T.
& Larsen, K.] 1970–.Flora of Thailand, vol. 2–ongoing. Forest
Herbarium, [initially Royal Forest Department] Department of
National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Bangkok,
Thailand.
SCC Editorial Committee 2013–2018. Species catalogue of China,
13 vols. Beijing: Science Press. http://sp2000.org/cn (accessed
20 Jul 2020).
Schischkin, B.K. & Vvedensky, A.I. (eds.) 1952–1965. Flora Kirgizs-
koi SSR [Flora of Kirgiz SSR], 11 vols. Frunze: Izdatel’stvo Aka-
demii nauk Kirgizskoi SSR. [in Russian]
Schneider, J.V. & Zizka, G. 2016. Quiinaceae. Flora Neotropica
Monograph 115. New York: New York Botanical Garden.
Sell, P. & Murrell, G. 1996–2008. Flora of Great Britain and Ireland,
5 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sennikov, A.N. (ed.) 2016–.Flora of Uzbekistan, vols. 1–3. Tashkent:
Navro’z Publishers. [in Russian]
Sennikov, A.N., Tojibaev, K.Sh., Khassanov, F.O., Beshko & Yu.N.
2016. The Flora of Uzbekistan project. Phytotaxa 282: 107–118.
https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.282.2.2
Sharrock, S. & Wyse Jackson, P. 2017. Plant Conservation and the
24 Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
Sustainable Development Goals: A policy paper prepared for the
Global Partnership for Plant Conservation. Ann. Missouri Bot.
Gard. 102: 290–302. https://doi.org/10.3417/D-16-00004A
Shepherd, G.J. & Perez Canhos, V. (eds.) 2005. Flora Brasiliensis.
http://florabrasiliensis.cria.org.br/ (accessed 20 Jul 2019).
Skvortzov, A.K. & Reshetnikova, N.M. (eds.) 2006–2018. Flora
Nizhnego Povolzhya [Flora of the Lower Volga Area], 2 vols.
Moscow: KMK Scientific Press.
Smith, G.F. 1996. The Species Plantarum Project –A world Flora in
the making. S. African J. Sci. 93: 387–388.
Smith, G.F. 2002. The Species Plantarum Project: Flora of the World
moves ahead. S. African J. Sci. 98: 28.
Smith, G.F., Klopper, R.R., Wyse Jackson, P. & Crouch, N.R. 2017.
The World Flora Online, Target 1 of the Global Strategy for Plant
Conservation, and the Species Plantarum Programme: Flora of the
World: Compatible concepts or mutually exclusive mandates? Ann.
Missouri Bot. Gard. 102: 551–557. https://doi.org/10.3417/D-17-
00004A
Smith, V.S., Rycroft, S.D., Harman, K.T., Scott, B. & Roberts, D.
2009. Scratchpads: A data-publishing framework to build, share
and manage information on the diversity of life. B. M. C. Bioinf.
10(Suppl. 14): S6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-S14-S6
Snijman, D.A. (ed.) 2013. Plants of the Greater Cape Floristic Region,
vol. 2. The Extra Cape flora. Strelitzia 30. Pretoria: South African
National Biodiversity Institute.
Söderström, L., Hagborg, A., von Konrat, M., Bartholomew-
Began, S., Bell, D., Briscoe, L., Brown, E., Cargill, D.C.,
Costa, D.P., Crandall-Stotler, B.J. & Cooper, E.D. 2016. World
checklist of hornworts and liverworts. PhytoKeys 59: 1–828.
https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.59.6261
Solanaceae Source 2004–. Solanaceae Source: A global taxonomic
resource for the nightshade family. http://solanaceaesource.org/
(accessed 19 Jul 2019).
Sosef, M. 2016. Producing the Flore d’Afrique Centrale, past, present
and future. Taxon 65: 937–939. https://doi.org/10.12705/654.54
Spichinger, R. & Bocquet, G. (eds.) 1983–.Flora del Paraguay, vols.
1–50. Geneva: Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève.
Stace, C. 2019. New Flora of the British Isles, 4th ed. Penrith: Summer-
field Books.
Stevens, W.D., Ulloa Ulloa, C., Pool, A. & Montiel, O.M. (eds.) 2001.
Flora de Nicaragua. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press.
http://www.tropicos.org/project/FN (accessed 20 Jul 2019).
Steyermark, J.A., Berry, P.E., Yatskievych, K. & Holst, B. (gen.
eds.) 1995–2005. Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana, 8 vols. New
York: Timber Press; St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press.
Takhtajan, A.L. (ed.) 1954–2010. Flora Armenii [Flora of Armenia], 11
vols. Erevan: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk Armiansloi SSR; Havkli-
kuv Brod: Koeltz Scientific Books; Ruggell: Gartner. [in Russian]
Takhtajan, A.L. (ed.) 2003–2012. Caucasian flora conspectus, vols.
1–3 [ongoing]. St. Petersburg: University of St. Petersburg Press,
KMK Scientific Press.
Tan, H.S., Nadiah, I. & Eryani, S.S. 2009. Open access tree flora of
Sabah and Sarawak project –Progress and future activities. Blu-
mea 54: 23–24. https://doi.org/10.3767/000651909X474069
Tewolde, B.G.E., Hedberg, O., Tadesse, M., Demissew, S., Friis, I.,
Hedberg, I. & Edwards, S. (eds.) 1989–2009. Flora of Ethiopia
and Eritrea, 7 vols. Addis Ababa: The National Herbarium, Addis
Ababa University; Uppsala: Department of Systematic Botany,
Uppsala University.
Thiombiano, A., Schmidt, M., Dressler, S., Ouédraogo, A., Hahn,
K. & Zizka, G. 2012. Catalogue des plantes vasculaires du Bur-
kina Faso. Boissiera 65. Geneva: Conservatoire et Jardin Botani-
ques de Genève.
Thiselton Dyer, W.T. 1896–1933. Flora Capensis, vols. 4–7. London:
Reeve.
Thomson, S.A., Pyle, R.L., Ahyong, S.T., Alonso-Zarazaga, M.,
Ammirati, J., Araya, J.F. & 178 co-authors 2018. Taxonomy
based on science is necessary for global conservation. PLoS Biol.
16(3): e2005075. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005075
Thulin, M. (ed.) 1993–2006. Flora of Somalia. Richmond, U.K.:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Tison, J.-M. & Foucault, B. de 2014. Flora Gallica. Mèze: Biotope
Editions.
TPL 2013. The Plant List, version 1.1. http://www.theplantlist.org/
(accessed 18 Jul 2019).
Tropicos 2019. Tropicos.org. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden.
http://www.tropicos.org (accessed 17 Jul 2019).
Turland, N.J., Wiersema, J.H., Barrie, F.R., Greuter, W.,
Hawksworth, D L., Herendeen, P.S., Knapp, S., Kusber,
W.-H., Li, D.-Z., Marhold, K., May, T.W., McNeill, J.,
Monro, A.M., Prado, J., Price, M.J. & Smith, G.F. (eds.)
2018. International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and
plants (Shenzhen Code) adopted by the Nineteenth International
Botanical Congress Shenzhen, China, July 2017. Regnum Vege-
tabile 159. Glashütten: Koeltz Botanical Books. https://doi.org/
10.12705/Code.2018
Turrill, W.B., Milne-Redhead, E., Polhill, R.M. & Beentje, H.J.
(eds.) 1952–2012. Flora of tropical East Africa, 262 vols.
London: Crown Agents [to 1979]; Rotterdam: Balkema.
Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H., Burges, N.A., Valentine, D.A., Walters,
S.M., Webb, D.A., Ball, P.W. & Moore, D.M. (eds.) 1964–1980.
Flora Europaea, 5 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H., Burges, N.A., Valentine, D.A., Walters,
S.M., Webb, D.A., Ball, P.W. & Moore, D.M. (eds.) 1993. Flora
Europaea, 2nd ed., vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tzvelev, N.N. (ed.) 1996–2004. Flora Europaea orientalis, vols. 9–11.
Saint Petersburg: Mir I Semia; Moscow & Saint Petersburg: KMK.
[in Russian]
Ulloa Ulloa, C., Acevedo-Rodríguez, P., Beck, S., Belgrano, M.J.,
Bernal, R., Berry, P.E., Brako, L., Celis, M., Davidse, G.,
Forzza, R.C., Gradstein, S.R., Hokche, O., León, B., León-
Yánez, S., Magill, R.E., Neill, D.A., Nee, M., Raven, P.H.,
Stimmel, H., Strong, M.T., Villaseñor, J.L., Zarucchi, J.L.,
Zuloaga, F.O. & Jørgensen, P.M. 2017. An integrated assess-
ment of the vascular plant species of the Americas. Science 358:
1614–1617. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0398
Ulloa Ulloa, C., Acevedo-Rodríguez, P., Beck, S., Belgrano, M.J.,
Bernal, R., Berry, P.E., Brako, L., Celis, M., Davidse, G.,
Forzza, R.C., Gradstein, S.R., Omaira Hokche, León, B.,
León-Yánez, S., Magill, R.E., Neill, D.A., Nee, M., Raven,
P.H., Stimmel, H., Strong, M.T., Villaseñor, J.L., Zarucchi,
J.L., Zuloaga, F.O. & Jørgensen, P.M. 2018–. Vascular Plants
of the Americas VPA Website. Tropicos, Botanical Information
System at the Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis. http://www.
tropicos.org/Project/VPA (accessed 17 Jul 2019).
Van Welzen, P. (current gen. ed.) 1948–.Flora Malesiana,ser.1,
Seed plants,vol.1,4–23 [1948–2019, ongoing]; ser. 2. Pterido-
phytes,vol.1–4 [1959–2012, ongoing]. Leiden: Nationaal Her-
barium Nederland.
Velayos, M. & al. (eds.) 2012–.Flora de Guinea Ecuatorial, vols. 1–5.
Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Villaseñor, J.L. 2016. Checklist of the native vascular plants of Mex-
ico. Revista Mex. Biodivers. 87: 559–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rmb.2016.06.017
Vvedensky, A.I. (ed.) 1968–1993. Conspectus florae Asiae Mediae,
10 vols. Tashkent: Fan. [in Russian]
Watson, M.F., Akiyama, S., Ikeda, H., Pendry, C.A., Rajbhandari,
K.R. & Shrestha, K.K. (eds.) 2011–.Flora of Nepal. Edin-
burgh: Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. http://www.floraof
nepal.org/onlineflora (accessed 19 Jul 2019).
WCSP 2016. World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Richmond:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. http://wcsp.science.kew.org (accessed
20 Jul 2020).
Version of Record 25
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
WFO 2019a. World Flora Online Guidelines for Taxonomic Backbone
Contributors, version 2.06. https://www.dropbox.com/s/78h02z
hnct7ikqh/WFOGuidelinesForTaxonomicBackboneContributors
(accessed 19 Jul 2019).
WFO 2019b. World Flora Online General Guideline for Data Contribu-
tors, version 2.07. Prepared by the World Flora Online Taxonomy
and Technology Working Groups. https://www.dropbox.com/s/
gy8lgofjf25wicm/WFOGeneralGuidelinesForDataContributors
V2.07.pdf?dl=0 (accessed 19 Jul 2019).
WFO 2019c. World Flora Online Guidelines for Content Data, version
2.04. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ul047pudjo91yif/WFOGuide
linesforContentDataContributorsV.%202.04.pdf?dl=0
Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., Appleton, G.,
Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.W., da Silva
Santos, L.B., Bourne, P.E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A.J.,
Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S.,
Evelo, C.T., Finkers, R., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., Gray, A.J.,
Groth, P., Goble, C., Grethe, J.S., Heringa, J., ’t Hoen, P.A.,
Hooft, R., Kuhn, T., Kok, R., Kok, J., Lusher, S.J., Martone,
M.E., Mons, A., Packer, A.L., Persson, B., Rocca-Serra, P.,
Roos, M., Van Schaik, R., Sansone, S.A., Schultes, E.,
Sengstag, T., Slater, T., Strawn, G., Swertz, M.A.,
Thompson, M., Van der Lei, J., Van Mulligen, E., Velterop,
J., Waagmeester, A., Wittenburg, P., Wolstencroft, K., Zhao,
J. & Mons, B. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific
data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3: 160018. https://
doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18. Addendum in: Sci. Data 6: 6
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0009-6
Womersley, J.S., Henty, E.E. & Conn, B.J. (eds.) 1978–1995. Hand-
books of the Flora of Papua New Guinea, 3 vols. Melbourne: Mel-
bourne University Press.
Wu, Z.-Y., Raven, P.H. & Hong, D.-Y. (eds.) 1994–2013. Flora of
China, 25 vols. Beijing: Science Press; St. Louis: Missouri Botan-
ical Garden Press.
Wyse Jac kson, P. 2013. Report of the Second Conference and General
Meeting of the Global Partnership for Plant Conservation. Ann. Mis-
souri Bot. Gard. 99(2): 129–138. https://doi.org/10.3417/2012004
Wyse Jackson, P. & Miller, J.S. 2015. Developing a World Flora
Online: A 2020 challenge to the world’s botanists from the interna-
tional community. Rodriguésia 66(4): 939–946. https://doi.org/
10.1590/2175-7860201566402
Zuloaga, F.O., Morrone, O. & Belgrano, M.J. (eds.) 2008. Catálogo
de las plantas vasculares del cono sur (Argentina, Sur de Brasil,
Chile, Paraguay y Uruguay). St Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden
Press.
Zuloaga, F.O., Rugolo, Z.E. & Anton, A.M.R. (eds.) 2012–.Flora
Argentina, vols. 1–11. San Isidoro: Instituto de Botánica Darwi-
nion. http://buscador.floraargentina.edu.ar/ (accessed 20 Jul 2019).
Appendix 1. Overview of major floristic data sources in the world.
A Flora is understood to be a publication with a consistent, synthetic treatment of plants within a region, typically including a single classification (taxonomic
backbone), taxon descriptions, and other content (e.g., identification keys, illustrations). A Flora is an original source of information used by WFO, usually
with different authors for different taxa. To be incorporated into WFO, a Flora has to be a citable publication in digital format, with marked-up data elements.
This can be achieved through scanning the printed treatments in regional or national-level Floras (see respective categories in this Appendix). Other Floras
are “born digital”and publish original accounts in digital format right away. Since the editorial workflows and publication standards for such e-Floras are still
developing, we also list frequently used websites providing comprehensive information for countries, as long as they present this with a unified classif ication
for all plants in their area and the source of the content is traceable (both original and compiled from previous individual publications). To be incorporated
into WFO, the content has to be versioned in order to be citable. Checklists, regional and national, in print or online, provide a consistent taxonomic
backbone reviewed by taxonomic experts. Although they contain little other “content”, they significantly contribute to unify nomenclature and taxonomy
for a region.
Floras and other sources already ingested into the WFO are highlighted with an asterisk (see Table 2).
AFRICA
Continental and regional-level checklists
African Plant Database (version 3.4.0). Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève and South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria,
http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/africa/, 62,049 species including Madagascar with 11,477 species.
Euro+Med Plant Base (Euro+Med, 2006–) covers the North African countries adjacent to the Mediterranean sea; 44,417 species and subspecies of vascular
plants in total; includes an extensive bibliography, vernacular names, occurrence data for countries, native status; constantly updated in the EDIT platform;
http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/.
Regional Floras
Flore d’Afrique Centrale*(Flore d’Afrique Centrale Editorial Committee, 1948–); covers the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, 60%
complete for an estimated number of 6000 species of vascular plants.
Flora Zambesiaca*(Flora Zambesiaca Managing Committee, 1950–); Botswana, Malawi, Mosambique, the Caprivi Strip (Namibia), Zambia and Zimbabwe;
90% complete.
Flora of tropical East Africa*(Turrill & al., 1952–2012); Kenya, Tansania and Uganda; treats 12,500 species of vascular plants; complete; in print and as pdf.
Flore d’Afrique du Nord (Maire, 1952–1987); Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt; treats 60% of the estimated 9000 species and subspecies of vascular
plants; remains unfinished; in print.
Flora of west tropical Africa*(Hutchinson & Dalziel, 1927–1936, 1954–1972, 2014 [rev. e-book ed.]); Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone and The Gambia.
The Flora of southern Africa (Codd & al., 1963–2005); covers Basutoland, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland,treats about 18% of the flora; not continued; in
print.
Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea (Tewolde & al., 1989–2009); treats about 7000 species of vascular plants; complete (see Demissew, 2014), but not updated; in
print.
26 Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
Appendix 1. Continued.
Checklists at national level
Catalogue des plantes vasculaires du Niger (Peyre de Fabrègues & Lebrun, 1976); in print.
Catalogue des plantes vasculaires du Mali (Boudet & al., 1986); in print.
Flore de la Côte-d’Ivoire: Catalogue systématique, biogéographie et écologie (Aké-Assi, 2001, 2002).
An annotated checklist of the vascular flora of Guinea-Bissau (Catarino & al., 2008); lists 1507 species of vascular plants; in print and as pdf.
Plants of Angola (Figueiredo & Smith, 2008); lists 6961 species but diversity may be more than 7100 species; in print.
Catalogue des plantes vasculaires du Burkina Faso (Thiombiano & al., 2012), lists 2067 species of vascular plants with ecological information, in print and
as pdf.
Catalogue of the plants of Madagascar (Madagascar Catalogue, 2012–); 11,626 species from an estimated 14,000; continuously updated; http://www.tropicos.
org/Project/Madagascar
Floras at national level
Flora Capensis (Harvey & Sonder, 1859–1865, vols. 1–3; Thiselton Dyer, 1896–1933, vols. 4–7; Hill, 1933); covers Northern, Western and Eastern Cape and
KwaZulu-Natal Provinces; 11,731 species; not updated; in print.
Conspectus florae Angolensis (Carisso & al., 1937–1977); lists ca. 3500 species (45% of the flora) with descriptions and illustrations; has come to a halt; in print.
Flore du Gabon (Aubreville & al., 1961–); so far treats 5500 of an estimated 7000 species of vascular plants, active project; in print.
Flore du Cameroun (Aubréville & al., 1963–); so far treats 3500 of an estimated 8300 species of vascular plants, has recently been revived.
Flore illustrée du Sénégal (Berhaut, 1971–1988); in print.
Flora of Tunisia (Pottier-Alapetite, 1979–1981); in print.
Flora of Libya (Ali & al., 1979–1990); in print.
Flore analytique du Togo (Brunel & al., 1984); treats 2302 species with identif ication keys and extensive evaluation of specimens, but more recent estimates are
more than 3134 species of vascular plants (Fousseni & al., 2014); not updated, in print.
Flore de Mauritanie (Barry & Celles, 1991); synoptic treatment of 1700 species; in print.
Flora of Somalia (Thulin, 1993–2006); treats 3165 species, complete; not updated, in print.
Plants of the northern provinces of South Africa: Keys and diagnostic characters (Retief & Herman, 1997); complete; synoptic treatment with keys; in print and
as pdfs.
Flora of Egypt (Boulos, 1999–2005); treats ca. 2100 species; in print.
Flore pratique du Maroc (Fennane & al., 1999–2015); synoptic Flora with keys and illustrations; in print.
Flore analytique du Benin (Akoègninou & al., 2006); treats 2800 species of vascular plants; in print.
Flora de Guinea Ecuatorial (Velayos & al., 2012–); about 10% of an estimated 12,000 species of vascular plants treated, ongoing project, in print.
Flora of the Greater Cape Floristic Region (Manning & Goldblatt, 2012, vol. 1; Snijman, 2013, vol. 2); complete; synoptic treatment with keys; in print and
as pdfs.
Plants of the Free State: Inventory and identification guide (Retief & Meyer, 2017); complete; synoptic treatment with keys; in print and as pdfs.
Flore illustrée du Tchad (César & Chatelain, 2019); treats 2098 species of vascular plants with short descriptions and illustrations of diagnostic characters; in
print and as pdf.
A Flora of the Eastern Cape Province (Bredenkamp, 2019); complete; synoptic treatment with keys; in print and as pdfs.
e-Floras and websites
Flora of Zimbabwe (Hyde & al., 2002–); 4195 species; contains short descriptions, fotos and specimen data and is continuously updated; https://www.
zimbabweflora.co.zw.
Flora of Mozambique (Hyde & al., 2007–); 6206 species; contains short descriptions, photos and specimen data and is continuously updated; http://www.
mozambiqueflora.com.
Flora of Zambia (Bingham & al., 2011–); 6829 species; contains short descriptions, photos and specimen data and is continuously updated http://www.
zambiaflora.com.
e-Flora of South Africa*(SANBI, 2016); covers South Africa; 23,170 taxa (species level and below), with roughly 20,000 descriptions available from various
sources, integrates the Floras that were elaborated for different provinces; continuously updated with new versions. The taxonomic backbone follows the
South African National Plant Checklist (SANPC, 2019).
eflora Maghreb (Chatelain & al., 2018–); covers Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia; http://efloramaghreb.org.
AMERICAS
Continental-level checklist
Vascular plants of the Americas (Ulloa Ulloa & al., 2018–); integrates existing national-level checklists and covers ca. 125,000 species (http://www.tropicos.org/
Project/VPA).
Regional Floras
Flora Mesoamericana*(Davidse & al., 1974–); covers southern Mexico and Central America, and the 6 volumes published include 8725 or 48% of the region’s
18,000 species.
Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada*(Gleason & Cronquist, 1991); treats 4285 species; a revised new edition is in
progress (http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/projects/northeastflora/).
Flora of North America*(Flora of North America Editorial Committee, 1993–); Canada and U.S.A.; 21 volumes so far published treat 14,655 species of vascular
plants of an estimated 18,600 species; R. Rabeler pers. comm.); pdf of printed volumes, but not updated; http://beta.floranorthamerica.org/Published_
Volumes.
Flora of the Guianas (Görts-Van-Rijn & al., 1985–); covers French Guiana, Guyana and Suriname; active project; so far treats 2433 species of seed plants,
193 ferns and fern allies, 272 bryophytes and 129 lichens, from an estimated total of about 15,000 species; partly digitized (949 angiosperm species so
far), species descriptions also published online together with a checklist using the EDIT Platform; http://portal.cybertaxonomy.org/flora-guianas/.
Floras at national level (including Floras for major parts of countries)
Flora Brasiliensis (Martius & al., 1840–1906); copiously illustrated and describing nearly 22,767 species, isstill one of the most extensive treatments of the Flora
of a megadiverse tropical country ever completed. The digitized work is available online in a fully searchable manner, with the original namesstandardized
and related to an updated taxonomy (Shepherd & Canhos, 2005).
Version of Record 27
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
Appendix 1. Continued.
Flora of Peru (MacBride, 1936–1960); treats about 80% of the species known at the time, which is only a part of the estimated total; largely outdated, in print.
Flora de Panama*(various authors 1943–1980); treats 6200 species with descriptions in the form of separate articles in the Annals of the Missouri Botanical
Garden; species number appears to be considerably higher; not updated; in print and online (http://legacy.tropicos.org/Project/PAC).
Flora de Venezuela (Lasser, 1968–1984); incomplete, print only.
Flowering plants of Jamaica (Adams, 1972), print only.
Flora of Ecuador (Harling & al., 1973–); is continuously being published and will cover about 16,000 species of mainland Ecuador (Jørgensen & León-Yánez,
1999), print only.
Flora of the Lesser Antilles (Howard, 1974–1989); print only.
Flora de Veracruz (Gómez-Pompa & Sosa, 1978–); covers the state Veracruz, Mexico; 2830 taxa treated (37% of 5500 species estimated); http://www1.inecol.
edu.mx/floraver/ (as pdf ).
Flora of the Bahama Archipelago (Correll & Correll, 1982); print only.
Flora de Colombia*(Flora de Colombia Editorial Committee, 1983–); with 830 species treated has been marked up completely in xml for integration with other
digital resources.
Flora del Paraguay (Spichinger & Bocquet, 1983–); published in print only.
Descriptive Flora of Puerto Rico and adjacent islands (Liogier, 1985–1997); print only.
Flora de la República de Cuba (Greuter & al., 1989–); an active project with about 30% of the 6775 species treated (R. Rankin, pers. comm.). The descriptions
will in future be also published online in connection with the checklist of vascular plants of Cuba (Greuter & Rankin, 2017) held in an EDIT Platform data-
base, and thus electronically available for WFO.
Flora del Bajio (Rzedowski & Calderón de Rzedowski, 1991–); covers the states Guanajuato, Querétaro, Michoacán and Mexico; 2830 taxa treated (50% of
5700 vascular plant species expected); http://inecolbajio.inecol.mx/floradelbajio/# (as pdf).
Flora of Tehuacán (Dávila Aranda & al., 1993–); covers the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley in the states of Oaxaca and Puebla; 1646 taxa treated (54% of 2700 spe-
cies expected); http://ibiologia.unam.mx/Flora/index.html (as pdf).
Flora de Chile (Marticorena & Rodríguez, 1995–2003); apparently discontinued, is also available only in print.
Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana (Steyermark & al., 1995–2005); states of Amazonas, Bolívar and Delta Amacuro of Venezuela; 9400 species; in print; a few
families are online: http://www.mobot.org/mobot/research/ven-guayana/.
Flora de Nicaragua*(Stevens & al., 2001); approx. 6000 species, updated online in Tropicos.
Manual de plantas de Costa Rica*(Hammel & al., 2003–2020); treats 9359 species of seed plants, but the 1565 ferns and relatives are missing; marked-up pdfs
available.
Flora Argentina (Zuloaga & al., 2012–); with 10,006 species, of which 40% are covered in the 11 published volumes. The data are fully accessible online.
Regional checklists
Checklist of the plants of the Guiana Shield (Funk & al., 2007); 8933 species of vascular plants, print only.
Catálogo de las plantas del cono sur (Zuloaga & al., 2008); treats 18,139 species for an area which includes Argentina, southern Brazil (Paraná, Santa Catarina
and Rio Grande do Sul States), Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay, and thus partly overlaps with the Flora do Brasil.
Checklist of seed plants of the West Indies (Acevedo-Rodríguez & Strong, 2012); Caribbean Islands, lists about 12,000 species.
National-level checklists
Flora of Panama: Checklist and index (D’Arcy, 1987); lists 9616 species; in print.
Catalogue of the flowering plantsand gymnosperms of Peru (Brako & Zarucchi, 1993); 17,119 angiosperms and 24 gymnosperms; not updated; the estimate for
the country is 25,000 species with more than 2000 new species and floristic records already published individually since 1993 (D. Montesinos, pers. comm).
Nuevo catálogo de la flora vascular de Venezuela (Hokche & al., 2008); in print.
Catálogo de las plantas vasculares de Bolivia (Jørgensen & al., 2014); lists 15,345 accepted species and synonyms revised by specialists; there are already
ca. 400 further taxa (species newly described and new records) being added in an online update (A.F. Fuentes, pers.comm.): https://Tropicos/org/
Project/BC.
Catálogo de plantas y líquenes de Colombia (Bernal & al., 2015–); in print and online, lists 26,279 species as of 1 May 2020.
e-Floras and websites
Flora do Brasil*(Flora do Brasil 2016–); an updated inventory cites 36,027 species and 2915 infraspecific taxa of vascular plants and bryophytes. Building on
this checklist, the Brazilian Flora 2020 project set out in 2016 to build an online Flora do Brasil (BFG, 2018), but the rapid initial progress was curtailed
abruptly due to the economic crisis of 2018 (BFG, 2018). By July 2019, a total of 19,585 descriptions of vascular plants and bryophytes (R. Campostrini
Forzza, pers. comm.) were available on the 2020 portal, which is in the process of being fully incorporated into WFO.
ASIA
Regional checklists
Conspectus florae Asiae Mediae (Vvedensky, 1968–1993); covers Kazakhstan (without northern part), Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan; treats 9341 spe-
cies, with recent additions (Kamelin & Khassanov, 2015); in print.
Caucasian flora conspectus (Takhatajan, 2003–2012); covers parts of the Russian Federation (northern Caucasus) as well as Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia;
so far vols. 1–3 with 4417 species, about 2000 more expected; active project; in print and online as pdf (https://www.binran.ru/resursy/informatsionnyye-
resursy/tekuschie-proekty/caucasian-flora/).
Euro+Med Plant Base (Euro+Med, 2006–); covers countries largely adjacent to the Mediterranean sea to the Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Egypt
[Sinai peninsula], Georgia, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Russian Federation [north Caucasus], Syria, Israel, Jordan, Turkey); 44,417 species and sub-
species of vascular plants in total; constantly updated in the EDIT platform; http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/.
Regional Floras
Flora of British India (Hooker, 1875–1897); covers an area of present-day Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Singapore,
Sri Lanka and Tibet; complete treatment of the 14,312 vascular plant species recognized in the area in the late 19th century; for some countries
such as India, the Flora still is the only work that covers all families, although, for example, for India, it includes only ca. 60% of the assumed species
diversity.
Flora of the USSR (Komarov & al., 1934–1964); covers a vast geographical area in East Europe, North, Central and Southwest Asia with 17,520 species; new
species and nomenclature updated by Cherepanov (1973) with an additional 6250 taxa added; available also in English translation; in print and as PDF
28 Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
Appendix 1. Continued.
(https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/43751#/summary); it remains an important source of information and for many areas the only complete
coverage of the flora.
Flora Malesiana (Van Welzen, 1948–); Series 1, Seed plants: vols. 4–23, 1948–2019, active project; Series 2, Pteridophytes: vols. 1–4, 1959–2012, active pro-
ject. Note: Series 1, vol. 1, Malaysian plant collectors and collections published in 1950; vols. 2 and 3 were never published); covers Malaysia, Singapore,
Indonesia, Brunei Darussalam, the Philippines, Timor-Leste and Papua New Guinea; so far, treats ca. 29% of the estimated 45,000species of vascular plants
in the area; treatments partly updated; online access to highly structured information derived from digitized volumes is available (Roos & al., 2011); https://
floramalesiana.org.
Flore du Cambodge, du Laos et du Viêtnam (Aubreville & al., 1960–); so far treats 2310 species of vascular plants, which is less than a quarter of the flora; active
project; in print; in French.
Flora Iranica (Rechinger, 1963–2016); covering Iran and adjacent countries; published treatments of more than 10,000 species of vascular plants; completed but
not updated, in print.
Flora of the Arabian Peninsula and Socotra (Miller & al., 1996–); covers Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates,Quatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait; two
volumes published treating one-third of an estimated 4300 species; ongoing project; in print.
Flora of Pan-Himalaya (Hong, 2015–2017); so far, four volumes published, treating 978 species of an estimated 20,000; active project; in print.
Floras at national level (including Floras for major parts of countries)
Flora Turkmenii (Fedtschenko & al., 1932–1960); complete; treats 2607 species; in print.
Flora Uzbekistana (Korovin & al., 1941–1962); complete; treats 4147 species; in print.
Flora Azerbajdžana (Karjagin & al., 1950–1961); complete, treats 4072 species; in print.
Flora Kirgizskoi SSR (Schischkin & Vvedensky, 1952–1965, with additions); complete; treats 3576 species; in print.
Flora Armenii (Takhtajan, 1954–2010); complete, treats 3260 species; in print.
Flora of Kazakhstana (Pavlov, 1956–1966); complete; treats 5631 species; in print.
Flora Tadzhikskoi SSR (Ovczinnikov, 1957–1991); complete; treats 4447 species; in print.
Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands (Davis, 1965–1985; and later supplements); comprehensive treatments of 9202 species; complete but not updated; in
print.
Flora of Pakistan*(Nasir & al., 1970–); about 5000 of an estimated 6000 species treated; in print; available via Tropicos (Hoch, 2000–), http://legacy.tropicos.
org/Project/Pakistan.
Flora of Thailand (various editors since 1970: now Santisuk & al.); 6246 species in 250 families covered from estimated total of 10,000–12,500 species; to be
finished in 2024; see Middleton, 2003; Parnell & al., 2003; some species brought online with Scratchpads (Cámera-Leret, 2015–); in print, in English.
Sakartvelos flora [Flora of Georgia] (Ketskoveli & Gagnidze, 1971–2011); almost complete (volume 17 with Poaceae still missing); treats ca. 3800 of an esti-
mated 4300 species; in print.
Flora of China (Wu Z.-Y. & al., 1994–2013); complete treatment of 31,362 species of vascular plants; in print and marked-up pdfs available; http://efloras.org/
flora_page.aspx?flora_id=2.
Flora of Bhutan (Grierson & Long, 1983–2002); complete; treats 5600 species; printed volumes, but also pdfs available; not updated.
Plantae vasculares Orientis Extremi Sovietici [Vascular plants of the Soviet Far East] (Kharkevich, 1985–1996); complete; provides data on the eastern part of
the Russian Federation with 4113 species (Kozhevnikov & Rudyka, 2002); in print.
Flora of Siberia (Malyshev & al., 1987–2003);covers Russia from the Urals to watershed ranges along the Pacific; complete, treats 4510 species; also available in
English; in print.
Flora of Japan (Iwatsuki & al., 1993–); treats three-quarters of the estimated 4500 vascular plants; active project; in print.
Flora of Taiwan (Huang, 1993–2003); ca. 4000 vascular plant species covered; not updated; in print and as pdfs; http://tai2.ntu.edu.tw/ebook.php?ebook=Fl.%
20Taiwan%202nd.
Flora of India (Hajra & al., 1995–); ca. 4500 taxa treated of an estimated 18,000 vascular plant species (100 of 300 families); in print and as pdf.
Illustrated Flora of Vietnam (Ph :
am Hoàng Hộ, 1999–); treats well over two-thirds of estimated 8000 species of vascular plants; active project; in print; in Viet-
namese.
Resimli Türkiye Florası[Illustrated Flora of Turkey]; two volumes have been published (Güner & Ekim, 2014; Güner & al., 2018); vol. 1 with introductory chap-
ters; vol. 2 includes 395 species; expects to treat more than 10,000 species; vol. 1, print only; vol. 2, available in both print and electronic formats (http://
satis.ang.org.tr/urun/resimli-turkiye-florasi-cilt-2-ekitap/).
Flora of Korea (Park, 2015–); will treat the estimated 3400 species; 8 of 10 volumes published; in print.
Flora of Uzbekistan (Sennikov, 2016–); so far, three volumes with 375 species out of a total 4340 species; active project; in Russian and English with simulta-
neous preparation of a digital version (see Sennikov & al., 2016).
National-level checklists
A checklist of the trees, shrubs, herbs, and climbers of Myanmar (Kress & al., 2003); lists 11,800 species; in print and as pdf.
Türkiye Bitkileri Listesi DamarlıBitkiler [A checklist of the Flora of Turkey, vascular plants] (Güner, A. & al., 2012); 9996 species; complete; in print.
Türkiye Bitkileri Listesi Karayosunları[A checklist of the Flora of Turkey, bryophtes] (Erdağ& Kürschner, 2017); 942 species; complete; in print.
Conspectus florae Rossiae Asiaticae (Baikov, 2012); covers Siberia and the Russian Far East; a complete checklist including 6696 species; in print.
Species Catalogue of China (SCC Editorial Committee, 2013–); Volume Plants, 13 books, includes 464 families, 4001 genera, 36,152 species of bryophytes and
vascular plants; in print; an electronic version as Catalogue of Life China released on 22 May 2020 (http://sp2000.org.cn/).
Nomenclatural checklist of Flora of Georgia (2nd ed.; Nakutsrishvili & Churadze, 2018); includes 4275 species but mostly without synonymy; taxonomy in the
first edition was based on Cherepanov (1995), then adjusted to Takhtajan, 2003–2012) in the 2nd edition for the available families in the conspectus
(M. Mosulishvili, pers. comm); in print.
Vascular plants of Azerbaijan: A nomenclatural checklist of nonflowering plants (Salimov & al., 2019); includes 115 species plus infraspecific taxa; in print and
pdf. Ongoing project with the publication of flowering plants planned.
e-Floras and websites
Flora of Nepal*(Watson & al., 2011–); about 10% of Nepal’s 7000 species treated; active project; one of the first “born digital”Flora projects, taking an entirely
digital approach to capturing, managing and publishing floristic data, with Flora accounts generated from this in print and electronic formats; www.
floraofnepal.org.
Co’s digital Flora of the Philippines (Pelser & al., 2011–); covers 10,165 species; with checklist and photographs but lacks descriptions; www.
philippineplants.org.
Version of Record 29
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
Appendix 1. Continued.
AUSTRALIA AND OCEANIA
Floras at national level (including Floras for major parts of countries)
Flora of Australia (Flora of Australia, 1981–); so far treats of 11,600 of the 28,700 taxa of land plants in Australia; active project; in print up to 2015; subsequent
treatments electronic (Flora of Australia, 2019); a summary report on the state of the flora published by the Australian Biological Resources Study (for
details and updates see Flora of Australia, 2019).
e-Floras and websites
Flora of New Zealand (Breitwieser & al., 2010–); 14 fascicles for ferns and lycophytes, 45 for bryophytes and 5 for seed plants are available, published as pdf.
National-level checklists
Australian Plant Census (APC) for Australia, Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria (CHAH), http://www.chah.gov.au/apc/index/html.
EUROPE
Continental-level checklist
Euro+Med Plant Base (Euro+Med, 2006–); covers the whole of Europe eastwards to the Ural mountains, but extends to all countries adjacent to the Mediter-
ranean sea and the Caucasus (see also under Asia; treats 32,980 species and 11,437 subspecies of vascular plants for Europe; 44,417 taxa in total; includes
an extensive bibliography, vernacular names, occurrence data for countries, native status; constantly updated in the EDIT Platform; http://ww2.bgbm.org/
EuroPlusMed/.
Regional Floras
Illustrated Flora of Central Europe (Hegi & al. [different editors in later editions], 1906–2016); covers Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and some adjacent geo-
graphical regions with detailed monographic treatments that are updated depending on families in 2nd and 3rd editions.
Flora Europaea (Tutin & al., vols. 1–5, 1964–1980; 2nd ed., vol. 1, 1992); included 11,557 species, a taxonomic backbone (now completely integrated and
updated in Euro+Med Plant Base) along with determination keys and short descriptions.
Flora partis Europaeae URSS (Fedorov & Tzvelev, 1974–1994, vols. 1–8) and its successor after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, the Flora Europaeae orien-
talis (Tzvelev, 1996–2004, vols. 9–11); 11 volumes, complete, cover all countries of the former USSR in eastern Europe (Belarus, Estonia., Lithuania, Lat-
via, Moldova and Ukraine) by providing short descriptions included in keys.
Flora Iberica (Castroviejo, 1986–2018); covers Portugal, Spain and Andorra and is complete except for the last volume dedicated to the Poaceae (in prep.); in
print and as pdf (http://www.floraiberica.es/).
Flora of Great Britain and Ireland (Sell & Murell, 1996–2008); complete in five volumes with detailed descriptions, print only.
Flora Nordica (Jonsell & al., 2000–2010); covers all Scandinavian countries and Iceland, but only three volumes were completed, including 1130 species of an
estimated number of 4600; print only.
Nouvelle flore de la Belgique, du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, du nord de la France et des régions voisines (Ptéridophytes et Spermatophytes) (Lambinon
& Verloove, 2012, 6th ed.); ca. 1500 species with keys, brief descriptions and additional information.
New Flora of the British Isles, 4th ed. (Stace, 2019); covers Great Britain and Ireland, includes ca. 5000 taxa; print only.
Floras at national level (including Floras for major parts of countries)
Flora Reipublicae Bulgaricae (Jordanov, 1963–); almost complete, 11 volumes so far, with descriptions and keys; print only.
Flora SR Srbije (Josifović, 1970–1986); complete; 10 volumes with keys and descriptions; print only. The second edition (1992–2012) has two volumes so far
(print only).
Mala Flora Slovenije, 3rd ed. (Martincić, 1999); descriptive keys; print only.
Norsk Flora, 7th ed. (Elven, 2005); descriptions for 2880 Norwegian plants; print only.
Flora dell’Isola di Sardegna (Arrigoni, 2006–2015); complete, 6 volumes with descriptions; print only.
Flora Nizhnego Povolzhya [Flora of the Lower Volga Area] (Skvortzov & Reshetnikova, 2006–2018); covers the southeast part of the Russian Federation, has
new original descriptions (in Russian).
Flora Ilustratăa României: Pteridophyta et Spermatophyta, 3rd ed. (Ciocârlan, 2009); descriptive keys for 3759 species of the Romanian flora.
Flora Belarusi [Flora of Belarus] (Parfenov, 2009–2017); 3 of 6 volumes are published.
Flora Corsica, 2nd ed. (Jeanmonod & Gamisans, 2013); 2724 taxa with descriptive keys; print only.
Flora Gallica (Tison & Foucault, 2014); contains more than 6000 taxa with descriptive keys; print only.
Flora d’Italia, 2nd ed. (Pignatti, 2017–2019); 4 volumes, print only.
Flora Helvetica, 6th ed. (Lauber & al., 2018); provides short descriptions and photographs for ca. 3200 species but has no synonymy; in print as well as smart-
phone app (www.flora-helvetica.ch/app, www.flora-helvetica.ch/app_fr.
Klícˇke kveˇteneˇČeské republiky, 2nd ed. (Kaplan & al., 2019); descriptive keys for ca. 3700 taxa; print only.
Heukels’Flora van Nederland [Heukels’Flora of the Netherlands] (Duistermaat, 2020); 24th ed.; covers 2525 taxa of which 2139 have short descriptions,
whereas 386 are reported with short characteristics; print only.
Flora of Greece (2021–); a new project that builds upon on a recent comprehensively annotated checklist (Dimopoulos & al., 2013), will deliver detailed treat-
ments for the 7810 plant taxa of Greece, being created in the EDIT Platform for Cybertaxonomy it will be both in print and online (portal.cybertaxonomy.
org/flora-greece/); the first of 10 volumes will appear in 2021.
National-level checklists
Index Florae Croaticae (Nikolić, 1994–2000); covers vascular plants; three volumes; print only.
Checklist of non-vascular and vascular plants of Slovakia (Marhold & Hindák, 1998).
Vascular plants of Ukraine: A nomenclatural checklist (Mosyakin & Fedoronchuk, 1999); contains ca. 5100 species, includes the Crimean peninsula.
Checklist of vascular plants of the Czech Republic (Danihelka& al., 2012); contains 3557 species; in print and as pdf (http://www.preslia.cz/P123Danihelka.pdf).
Vascular Plants of Greece: An annotated checklist (Dimopoulos & al., 2013); contains 7810 species and subspecies of vascular plants with information on occur-
rence in the 13 floristic regions of Greece, and IUCN conservation status information; is continuously updated online (http://portal.cybertaxonomy.org/
flora-greece/content).
An updated checklist of the vascular flora native to Italy (Bartolucci & al., 2018); includes 8195 taxa (https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2017.1419996).
30 Version of Record
Borsch & al. •World Flora Online TAXON 00 (00) •1–31
Appendix 1. Continued.
Kritichka lista vrsta vaskularie flore srbije [An annotated checklist of the vascular flora of Serbia] (Niketić& Tomović, 2018); the first volume (ferns, lycophytes,
gymnosperms and monocots) contains 1004 taxa; in print and as pdf.
Checklist of vascular plants of Albania (Barina & al., 2018); contains 5480 accepted taxa; as pdf (https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.378.1.1).
Checklist of the vascular plants of Finland: Suomen putkilokasvien luettelo (Kurtto & al., 2019); an updated checklist of 3236 species present in thewild; in print
and as pdf. (https://helda.helsinki.fi//bitstream/handle/10138/307238/checklist_plants_finland.pdf).
Belgian Species List (2020); contains 1502 species of vascular plants, 2633 of species of plants (vascular and non-vascular), with backbone information, scien-
tific names, English, French, Dutch and German names, photos, threat information, distributional information (http://www.species.be/en/59170).
Nederlands Soortenregister [The Dutch Species Register] (2020); covers all organisms and lists 3077 vascular plants and 424 bryophytes with ecological status
of the species in the Netherlands; continuously updated online (http://www.nederlandsesoorten.nl).
e-Floras and websites
Flore de la France Métropolitaine; a Flora of France available on the site of the AssociationTela Botanica(2001–); based on the recently updated BDNFF (Base
de Données Nomenclaturale de la Flore de France) and partly complemented with descriptions from the old French flora of Coste (1900–1906).
Flora of Cyprus –A dynamic checklist (Hand & al., 2011–); treats 2031 taxa of vascular plants; includes bibliography and photographs; continuously updated
(http://www.flora-of-cyprus.eu/).
Version of Record 31
TAXON 00 (00) •1–31 Borsch & al. •World Flora Online
