EPHEMEROPTERA OF THE WORLD
		arb.sig.	ABC	a  b  c  d  e  f  g  h  i  j  k  l  m  n  o  p  q  r  s  t  u  v  w  x  y  z

NEW GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXONOMIC DATABASES

New version of the «Ephemeroptera of the World»
as the first experience of a permanent and objective web catalogue in biology

by

N.J. Kluge

Presented at the International Joint Meeting on Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera (XVI International Symposium on Plecoptera & XII International Conference on Ephemeroptera) in Germany, Stuttgart, Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde, 8-14 June 2008

Published as: Kluge N.J. 2009. New version of the database «Ephemeroptera of the World» as the first experience of a permanent and objective web catalogue in biology // In: A.H. Staniczek (ed.): International Perspectives in Mayfly and Stonefly Research (Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Ephemeroptera and the 16th International Symposium on Plecoptera, Stuttgart 2008) // Aquatic Insects, Volume 31, Supplement 1: 167-180

Abstract

Two databases, «Ephemeroptera of the World» and «Phylogeny of Ephemeroptera», are now available from the web site http://www.insecta.bio.pu.ru. They are connected one with each other by a common front-page, common alphabetic indices, common list of references and numerous links, but they are basically different, and each of them can be used separately. While the database «Phylogeny of Ephemeroptera» represents a usual scientific work, the database «Ephemeroptera of the World» is unusual in a way that it can objectively reflect all scientific literature on Ephemeroptera. Probably, this is the first attempt to build database of this way in biology. Cataloguing of biological information in web databases is quite necessary, but existent projects cannot fulfill the requirements needed in such catalogues. In existent catalogues, objective information is mixed with subjective opinions by the compilers in such a manner, that further development of these databases for scientific needs is impossible. Principles elaborated for the database «Ephemeroptera of the World», can be used to create such comprehensive global databases, which could be used and filled up for an unlimitedly long time without reconstruction. The most important principles are: correct selection of objective nomenclatural information from subjective scientific information; using primary binomina as universal markers for nomenclatural species; uniting typified supra-species nomenclatural taxa according to their type-genera; using the basic format of typified names.

Which kind of information can and which can not be a subject of database

Some people believe that it is possible to create a database of species and/or higher taxa as such. Attempts to build such databases are «Global Biodiversity Information Facility», «Tree of Life», «Biology Catalog», «AlgaeBase», «Species Fungorum», «ZipcodeZoo», «AnimalBase», «Fauna Europaea», «World Porifera Database», «Hexacorallians of the World», «The World Spider Catalog», «TicksBase», «ChiloBase», «Catalogue of the Odonata of the World», «Orthoptera Species File Online», «Blattodea Species File Online», «On-line Systematic Catalog of Plant Bugs», «ScaleNet», «World Scarabaeidae Database», «ScarabNet», «Cerambycidae database», «Electronic Catalogue of Weevil names (Curculionoidea)», «Universal Chalcidoidea Database», «AntBase», «Bumblebees of the World», «Trichoptera World Checklist», «LepIndex», «Global Taxonomic Database of Tineidae (Lepidoptera)», «Global Taxonomic Database of Gracillariidae», «Catalogue of Craneflies of the World», «World Turtle Database», «AviBase» and others.

Actually, neither species, nor any other natural object can be put into a computer: computer is an electronic machine, not a box for collection, and only logical objects can be stored there. Each logical object is created by a human brain. If so, there appears a question: from whose brains are those statements taken which constitute a database? Here are two possibilities: (1) the information is created by a certain author or a limited group of authors who prepared the database; (2) the information is taken from existent literature, and all literature sources are reflected in the database as equal ones. These two approaches are basically different and should be clearly distinguished.

In the first case, when the database consists of statements which its author(s) regards to be correct, this database is a scientific work, and as any scientific work it must have a clear authorship; it can not be anonymous or signed by some organization with unlimited number of contributors. Such a database should never be regarded as a single possible one in this field of knowledge, but should assume possibility of other databases on the same subject, made by different authors. Some people think that if there is written that the species a-us belongs to the genus B-us and inhabits C-landia, such kind of information can be absolutely correct and does not need even reference to the source. But actually, the placement of the species a-us to the genus B-us proceeds from the author’s opinion that this species is phylogenetically nearer to other species placed by him to this genus, than to any other animal species (if this author accepts principles of phylogenetic systematics), or with some other author’s opinion about classification; the statement that the species a-us inhabits C-landia, proceeds from the author’s opinion that determination of individuals from C-landia as belonging to the species a-us, is correct; this opinion, in its turn, is connected with the author’s species concept. Statements of such kind can not be divided into correct ones and errors, which should be corrected. They are parts of certain scientific concepts, so that can be correct in one context and wrong in another context at the same time; they are components of scientific knowledge, about which nobody may give final conclusion if it is correct or not. So, if such statements are presented as correct ones, it is not enough to give references to their original sources, but it is necessary also to indicate clearly the author of the database, who had selected these sources and regards this information to be correct.

In the second case, when information is taken from the literature, the database as a whole can be anonymous or can be compiled by an unlimited number of contributors. In such a database, instead of statement that the species a-us belongs to the genus B-us, it is stated that in the publication N the species a-us was placed to the genus B-us, and in the publication M the species a-us was placed to the genus C-us. Instead of the statement that the species a-us inhabits in C-landia, it is stated that in the publication N the species a-us was reported from C-landia, and in the publication M there was expressed doubt about correctness of the species determination made in the publication N. Such a database can be absolutely objective and correct in the sense, that it objectively reflects all literature, correctly informing the reader obout which statements in which publications are contained. Unlike the database which reflects opinion of its compiler and exists until this opinion will be changed, a database which objectively reflects literature, can exist for an unlimitedly long time, never becoming out of date. I could not find such kind of databases on the internet, and think that they have not been elaborated yet. To catalogue literature information about Ephemeroptera, I prepared a database «Ephemeroptera of the World», which is online since 28.II.2008. In this database, some new principles are used, which allow to input information objectively taken from literature, in the most rational manner. These principles are explained below.

 Problem of species catalogues and its resolution

In the objective literature database, references about species should be distributed not among species, but among species names, because a particular species concept can be a subject of disagreement; names also can be a subject of disagreement, but unlike species concepts, names can be formalized univocally.

The main problem which appears when people try to make catalogues of species names, is the non-stability of binary nomenclature. Initially, this nomenclature was planned by Linnaeus (1752, 1753, 1758) as very stable: in his classification, if a species was initially correctly determined as belonging to a certain genus and got a non-homonymous name, it got such a binary name, which could not be changed in future. But since Latreille (1802) introduced families and other family-group categories as inserted between the Linnaean categories genus and order, it became very easy to add new hierarchical levels above genus. At the same time, a similarly easy way to add new hierarchical levels below genus have not been suggested: according to the modern International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code), it is only possible to insert one level between genus and species – namely the subgenus; even this single category is usually avoided by zoologists, because its spelling is inconvenient. As a result of this, while classification becomes more and more composite thanks to discovery of new species and/or discovery of new characters, which help to unite taxa into natural groups, new categories which are necessary to reflect these changes, are added only above genera, but not below them. Because of this, inflation of genus takes place: generic rank is shifted lower and lower, passing from the group for which it was initially attributed, at first to subordinate taxa, then to taxa subordinated to them, and so on.

For example, originally the generic rank was given to a holophyletic taxon which united all mayflies, and this taxon got the generic name Ephemera; inside this genus Linnaeus (1758) distinguished informal infrageneric groups “Ephemera cauda triseta” and “Ephemera cauda biseta”. Later, in course of increasing of number of known species, the generic rank and the generic name Ephemera were shifted from mayflies as a whole to the group “Ephemera cauda triseta”, while the former taxon Ephemera got a rank of tribe and a family-group name Ephemerides (Leach 1815); in accordance with this, mayflies formerly placed to the group “Ephemera cauda biseta” were placed to new genera Baetis and Cloeon, and their binary names were changed. Later, the generic rank and the name Ephemera was shifted to more and more particular taxon of mayflies, and in accordance with this, in binary names of other mayflies, the generic name Ephemera was changes to other ones. The last restriction of the taxon Ephemera was done by Kluge (2004), when a plesiomorphon Sinephemera was established, and the taxon Ephemera s.str. (Ephemera/fg11 in the hierarchical nomenclature) was restricted to a holophyletic group uniting only those species, whose male genitalia have peculiar rolled titillators. Here, as well as in many other cases, changing of the generic name in species binomina was connected not with wrong initial determination of these species, but only with subsequent detailing of classification. In other cases, changes of binary names are connected with changes of opinions about status of these or that supra-species taxa.

For example, during a rather short period since 1980ths till 2000ths, the same author P. McCafferty changed binary names Pseudocloeon alachua – to Baetis alachua – to Plauditus alachua – to Acentrella alachua; Pseudocloeon cestum – to Barbaetis cestus – to Plauditus cestus; Baetis propinquus – to Labiobaetis propinquus – to Pseudocloeon propinquum. Taking into account that the type species of Pseudocloeon has not been rediscovered yet and most probably is congeneric with Acentrella, and the genera Barbaetis and Plauditus have no distinct diagnoses, these changes are fare not the final ones. Opinions about generic position of these or that species, expressed by different authors, can be much more diverse.

According to the rules still retained in the 4^th edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the ending of a species name can be changed in accordance with the gender of the generic name. Since Latin grammar is rather complicate, and in most cases not applicable to zoological names created by authors who were not familiar with it, endings of many species names appear to be undetermined and are used differently by different authors.

As a result of the change of generic names, binomina which initially were not homonymous, may become secondary homonyms; in this case, according to the Code, the younger of them should be renamed reversibly. Because of this, in some cases different authors, who have different opinions about the status of certain generic names, must use different species names for the same species. For example, the same species should be called either Epeorus sinitshenkovae Tshernova 1981, or Epeorus ninae Kluge 1995, dependently if we regard Iron (with the species Iron sinitshenkovae Braasch & Zimmermann 1979) to be a genus, or a subgenus in the genus Epeorus.

As a result of instability of generic names, endings of species names and species names as a whole, there appear problems with their cataloguing, especially in electronic databases. These problems can be easily and univocally dissolved, if use primary binomina. According to the Code, if homonymous primary binomina appear, the younger of them are renamed irreversibly. This means, that in the whole of zoological nomenclature, each available primary binomen is absolutely unique and can never coincide with any other available primary binomen. If we write primary binomina in a form different from secondary binomina, such primary binomina become absolutely reliable markers of species (Kluge 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2004). In taxonomic texts, primary binomen should be written with generic name at the end, in square brackets. For example: diptera [Ephemera] or diptera Linnaeus 1761 [Ephemera]. For file names and other markers in electronic databases, other spellings of the primary binomina can be used, but in all cases there must be a species name with an original ending and the generic name was supplied with it in the original description. Square brackets are the most convenient punctuation marks, if primary binomina are mentioned in texts. In catalogues of the type-specimens, published by the Zoological Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences, and in the web database «AnimalBase», generic names of primary binomina are also written at the end, but separated by comma; this seems to be less convenient than square brackets, because in text a comma can be confused with commas indicating the structure of a sentence. In the list of type specimens of Ephemeroptera in the British Museum (Kimmins 1971) generic names of primary binomina are written at the end, but included in parentheses; this is also less convenient than square brackets, because generic names in round brackets can be confused with names of subgenera.

In various electronic databases (such as «ZooBank», «Fauna Europaea», «The Paleobiology Database», «AlgaeBase», «Species Fungorum», «World Porifera Database», «A World Catalogue of Centipedes», «Catalogue of the Odonata of the World», «Orthoptera Species File Online», «Blattodea Species File Online», «On-line Systematic Catalog of Plant Bugs», «Cerambycidae database», «LepIndex», «Amphibian Species of the World», «AviBase») records for each species are identified by a unique number/identifier. Creation of these numbers would be unnecessary, if primary binomina were used instead. Unlike arbitrary numbers, which are different in different databases, all primary binomina are universal and can be used to create a global biodiversity database.

 The problem of taxonomic catalogues and its resolution

Most biological catalogues are based on this or that certain classification. At the same time, any biological classification, being based on phylogeny, reflects a concrete scientific theory and is a subject of scientific discussion. This means, that no one classification can be equally accepted by all actively working systematicists. In course of investigations, when new apomorphies are discovered, new holophyletic taxa are established and old plesiomorphons are abandoned, an old classification becomes out of date. Together with it, catalogues based on this classification, also become out of date, and a great work for their creating appears to be useless. The catalogue «Ephemeroptera of the World» lacks this shortcoming. All information in this catalogue is objective – i.e. it does not depend upon the compiler's opinion about phylogeny, classification and/or nomenclature of mayflies. Here classifications, suggested by all authors in all their publications, are cited as equally credible; all taxa names are given in that senses and spellings, as in each of these publications. My own opinion on mayfly phylogeny is expressed in a separate database «Phylogeny of Ephemeroptera», which is connected with «Ephemeroptera of the World» by numerous links, but is not its necessary component.

In the objective literature database, references about supra-species taxa, like that about species (see above) should be distributed not among taxa, but among taxa names. Supra-species taxa names belong to two basically different groups – typified ones (which are used either as ranking, or as hierarchical) and non-typified (which are used either as circumscriptional, or irregularly) (Kluge 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2004).

Among typified nomenclatures, the hierarchical nomenclature is more powerful and rational than ranking one, but the ranking nomenclature is traditional and remains widely used. The database «Ephemeroptera of the World», being objective in relation to literature sources, reflects hierarchical and ranking names as equivalent ones. Typified names can be used to form both ranking and hierarchical names of taxa; besides this, typified names can be written in a basic format (or "universal form"), which does not belong to a concrete taxon. The basic format of typified names should be understood and accepted by every zoologist without discussion, because it reflects only rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and ICZN Opinions, but not anybody’s other opinions. Each name in the basic format represents a separate nomenclatural object in terms of the Code. For example, both the genus Ephemera and the subgenus Ephemera with any circumscriptions and diagnoses, constitute a single nomenclatural object, whose usage is regulated by a set of nomenclatural rules for genus-group names, and has one authorship – Linnaeus 1758. In the basic format, this nomenclatural object can be shortly indicated as “Ephemera/g” (that means “Ephemera as an available genus-group name, independently of its taxonomic status”). The nomenclatural object which can be defined as “Ephemeroidea, Ephemeridae, Ephemerinae, Ephemerini, Ephemerina and any other names derived from the generic name Ephemera and formed from the base Ephemer- and any suffix and ending” in the basic format can be shortly indicated as “Ephemera/f” (that means “available family-group names derived from the generic name Ephemera”); according to the Code, it has the authorship Latreille 1810, and has priority upon younger family-group names. Both these nomenclatural objects together can be abbreviated in the basic format as “Ephemera/fg”. Such spelling of the basic format is the most convenient for taxonomic texts, being well-distinguishable from names of concrete ranking taxa – genus Ephemera and others. For file-names and other markers in electronic databases, other spellings of the basic format can be used, not obligatory with symbols indicating family-group and genus-groups, but in all cases with the generic name.

In systematics, genus-group and family-group names are not separated: a taxon of the same circumscription and diagnosis, in different classifications can have different ranks either of the genus-group, or of the family-group. In accordance with this, in the database «Ephemeroptera of the World” references to all taxa names derived from the same generic name are compiled on one page. The title of this page and all links to it are given in the basic format. This page contains several tables, each with references to one ranking or hierarchical name. At the head of this page, there are listed invariable attributes of the typified name – authorship of the genus-group name, its type-species and source of its designation, authorship of the family-group name (if present). All other attributes (spelling, rank, systematic position, et al.) are variable, so they are given only in certain lines of the tables, being connected with corresponding literature sources.

All typified nomenclatures (both ranking and hierarchical) are organized in such a manner, that in different classifications the same name can belong to different taxa, and different names can belong to the same taxon. This fact makes creating catalogues difficult. If one uses a database where typified names are united under names in the basic format, this problem is partly dissolved: in this case one file still contains data about different taxa, but data about one taxon are not dispersed in different files.

Non-typified names are not regulated by the Code, and they can be regulated only by the rules of circumscriptional nomenclature; some people use them not in accordance with the circumscriptional principle, but irregularly. In the database «Ephemeroptera of the World”, references to each non-typified name are united to one file which includes a single table. This file is linked with the database «Nomina Circumscribentia Insectorum», which contains all nomenclatural parameters of non-typified names in arthropodology. 

Which kind of information should be presented in a catalogue

There is an opinion that a catalogue can contain information about nomenclatural actions only. According to this, some catalogues include the authorship of taxa names, binomen combinations and synonymy, but do not contain other references. Actually, we must clearly define what nomenclatural actions are. There are only three kinds of actions which should be regarded as nomenclatural: (1) publication of a new available taxon name; (2) subsequent designation of the type taxon for that name, where it was not designated in the original publication; and (3) suppression of a name by plenary power or by other means. All other actions, such as moving a species from one genus to another, splitting a genus into several smaller ones, establishing a new synonymy, etc., are not nomenclatural, but taxonomic only. According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, all zoologists must take into account nomenclatural actions, independently if they like them or not: the name published with observance of all criteria of availability, has priority upon any taxa names published later, independently of quality of the publication; the earliest type designation is correct, independently of its results; and suppression of a name, made in accordance with the Code, makes this name unavailable. Nobody may ignore nomenclatural actions, so, it is necessary to catalogue all nomenclatural actions in order to make information about them available to all zoologists. Such catalogue, which would include information about all nomenclatural actions in zoology (i.e., all available taxa names with their authorship and types), is extremely necessary, but, unfortunately, has not been done till now. There is only one all-zoological catalogue «Nomenclator Zoologicus» – a comprehensive catalogue of genus-group names, but without information about type species. Besides it, there are some catalogues on selected animal taxa only.

Unlike the true nomenclatural actions, other taxonomic actions, such as various changes of binomen combinations (marked as “comb.n.”), change of rank in limits of the same nomenclatural group (marked as “stat.n.”), establishing of new subjective synonymy (marked as “syn.n.”) and restoring a valid name from synonyms, are no more than opinions by certain taxonomists, and other taxonomists can choose to ignore them. Each scientist can decide himself, if a certain species should be attributed to this or that genus, if a certain taxon should have this or that rank, if these or that names belong to the same taxon (i.e., are synonyms) or to different ones. Since all zoologists use the same Code of nomenclature, when their opinions concerning taxonomy coincide, they use the same names, independently if they took them from literature or came to these conclusions independently. So knowledge about taxonomic actions, at which a name was changed, has the same (but not higher) importance, as knowledge about any other scientific works – morphological descriptions, physiological experiments, ecological observations, faunistic reports, etc.

Thus, only two types of taxonomic databases are justified: (1) brief, which reflect only true nomenclatural actions – publications of available taxa names, designations of type taxa and suppressions of taxa names; (2) comprehensive, which include maximum information about published scientific data.

The database «Ephemeroptera of the World» belongs to the second type. It is rather difficult to determine the boundary between literature citations that should be included in the database obligatorily, and that which can be ignored. Besides taxonomic and morphological publications, which should be included without doubt, there are many faunistic lists and ecological investigations. Some of them are done by good specialists, so contain information which can be useful for taxonomic research. Sometimes taxonomic literature can not be understood without knowledge of certain faunistic or ecological publications, and such publications should be included in the database obligatorily. But there are also many faunistic lists which repeat one another and many synecological investigations, where mayflies are only mentioned among other aquatic organisms. It would be better to refer all of them in the database, if possible, while this is not obligatory.

 Structure of the database «Ephemeroptera of the World»

The database «Ephemeroptera of the World» consists of a large number of HTML files connected by numerous links. These files are: (1) front-page with table of contents; (2) introduction; (3) instruction to contributors; (4) list of arbitrary signs; (5) 27 files with a list of references; (6) alphabetic index of supra-species taxa names (both typified and non-typified); (7) 26 files with a list of species names; (8) many (currently several thousands) species-name files; (9) many (currently several hundreds) typified-name files; (10) many (currently several dozens) circumscriptional-name files. Each page has a banner with the title of the database and links to the front-page and to the alphabetic indices of supra-species and species names.

In the alphabetic list of supra-species taxa names, all typified names are given in the basic format. In the alphabetic list of species names, all names are given as primary binomina. For example, instead of “Pseudocloeon alachua”, “Baetis alachua”, “Plauditus alachua”, “Acentrella alachua”, here is given a single name alachua [Pseudocloeon] with a link to corresponding species-name file. Thanks to this, the list is many times shorter than it could be if it included all published binomina.

Species-name pages. The file-name of each species-name page includes the primary binomen. Title of this page represents a primary binomen with full authorship. Then a table on species, subspecies and informal infra-species names is provided. This table contains all citations of this species-group name, each in a separate line. All citations are given in chronological order, independently of species binomina. Each citation, occupying one line, contains the following fields: (1) “sources:” – author, year and sometimes pages of the cited publication; (2) “subjects:” – by special symbols here are indicated stages of development which are described, figured and/or discussed in the cited publication, or geographical areas from which the species was reported, or other data contained in the cited publication (independently, if the compiler of the database regards it to be correct or not); (3) “valid names:” – that binomen, which the author of the cited publication regarded to be correct; besides genus and subgenus, here can be also indicated informal taxon (for example, group of species); if the cited publication does not contain a certain unique binomen accepted by the author, here is indicated systematic position of this species or status of this species name, as it was proposed in the cited publication; if the species is designation as the type of a generic name, this is also indicated here; if the name is regarded to be a junior synonym, in the field “valid name” there is given its older synonym, with a link to the corresponding file; (4) “invalid synonyms:” – that species names which the author of the cited publication regarded to be junior or invalid synonyms, with links to the corresponding files. For example the page “peterseni [Ecdyonurus]”:

peterseni Lestage 1930 [Ecdyonurus]

Here underlined words are linked, correspondingly, to the pages “Ecdyonurus/fg”, “Afronurus/fg”, “Cinygma/fg”, “hyalinus [Ecdyonurus]”, “abnormis [Heptagenia]” and “lyriformis [Ecdyonurus]”.

Various opinions about synonymy and misidentifications are given as the following: if in the later publication there was given a correction, author and year of this publication are written in the field “invalid synonyms”, with exclamation mark in front. For example, in the page "longicauda [Baetis]":

longicauda Stephens 1835 [Baetis]

This means, that Eaton (1871) regarded Baetis subfusca to be a junior subjective synonym of Heptagenia longicauda; the species identified by Rolands (1856) as Baetis longicauda, he regarded to be what he called Heptagenia venosa, and the species identified by Hagen (1863) as Baetis longicauda, he regarded to be Heptagenia flavipennis. Kimmins (1942) regarded Heptagenia flavipennis and Baetis cerea to be junior subjective synonyms of H. longicauda; species identified by Eaton (1871) as Heptagenia longicauda, he regarded to be Ecdyonurus dispar. If we follow the link from the underlined word “subfusca”, we will come to the page “subfusca [Baetis]”, where is indicated that this name was regarded by Eaton (1871) to be a synonym of Heptagenia longicauda (with back link to the page “longicauda [Baetis]”), and was regarded by Kimmins (1942) to be a synonym of Ecdyonurus dispar (with link to the page “dispar [Baetis]”):

subfusca Stephens 1835 [Baetis]

Besides the table on species names, in the same page can be given another table – on informal supra-species taxa, whose arbitrary names are formed from this species name (for example, “group venosus”). This table, besides the same fields as in the species-table – “sources”, “subjects”, “actual name” (instead of “valid name”) and “synonyms”, includes fields “higher taxon”, “subordinated taxa” and “valid names”. The last one (“valid names”) is used not for data from the same source, but for links to subsequently established valid generic names. 

Typified-name pages. Each typified-name page unites all data about all genus-group and family-group taxa, whose names are formed from the same generic name. The file-name of each typified-name page includes this generic name. Title of this page represents a typified name in the basic format; below it, there are given full authorship of the family-group and genus-group names, with the type species and source of its designation. Then follow one or several tables, each with a separate typified name: table(s) with hierarchical name(s) (if present) – from the highest (accompanied with the smaller number) to the lowest (accompanied with the larger number); table(s) with family group name(s) (if present) – from the highest to the lowest; tables with genus-group name – genus (if present) and subgenus (if present). Than follows an integral list of all supra-species taxa subordinated to any taxon of this page; this list is compact, because all taxa names are given in the basic format, being linked to corresponding pages. Than follows an integral list of all species names, which at any time were combined with this generic or subgeneric name; these names are given as primary binomina and are linked with the corresponding pages. Than follows a table of species, reported in literature as belonging to this genus without species names.

Each table for a typified name has the following fields: (1) “sources:” – author, year and sometimes pages of the cited publication; (2) “subjects:” – by special symbols here are indicated stages of development which are described, figured and/or discussed in the cited publication, or other data contained in the cited publication (independently, if the compiler of the database regards it to be correct or not); (3) “valid names:” – name in that spelling, which was used in the cited publication; if the name is regarded to be a junior synonym, in the field “valid name” there is given its older synonym, with a link to the corresponding file; (4) “invalid synonyms:” – that taxa names which the author of the cited publication regarded to be junior or invalid synonyms, with links to the corresponding files; (5) “higher taxon:” – that taxon to which the author of publication attributed the taxon under consideration; (6) “subordinated taxa:”  – that taxa which the author of publication regarded to be directly subordinated to the taxon under consideration. 

Circumscriptional-name pages

Their form is similar to that of typified-name pages. Below the title, instead of authorships of family-group and genus-group names, there is authorship of circumscriptional name, data about original circumscription, the oldest typified name (with link to corresponding page) and link to the database «Nomina Circumscribentia Insectorum», which accumulates all nomenclatural data about circumscriptional names in arthropodology. All data are given in a single table with the same fields, as in the typified-name tables. 

Present condition of the database «Ephemeroptera of the World»

At the present time (July 2009), database contains more than 5000 taxa names, among them: 61 non-typified taxa names. 779 genus-group names – in most part available, including a few unavailable ones. The total number of all typified names, including all names of superfamilies, families, subfamilies, tribes, subtribes names et al. is much higher than 779. The number of primary species binomina (4489) is much higher than the number of described species because of all objective and subjective synonyms are included. Total number of all species binomina, if all combinations of species and generic names are counted is also much higher. These are all or nearly all the taxa names currently available, and in the future these numbers will increase with publication of new taxa.

References

International code of zoological nomenclature / Code international de nomenclature zoologique. 4th edition. // International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, 1999.

Kimmins D.E. 1971. A list of the type-specimens of Ephemeroptera in the British Museum (Natural History). // Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Entomology 25(7): 307-324.

Kluge N.J. 1999a. [A system of alternative nomenclatures of the supraspecific taxa.] - Entomol. Obozrenie, 78 (1): 224-243 (in Russian).

Kluge N.J. 1999a. A system of alternative nomenclatures of supra-species taxa. Linnaean and post-Linnaean principles of systematics. - Entomological Review, 79 (2): 133-147 (English translation of Entomol. Obozrenie).

Kluge N.J. 1999b. Mitos en sistematica y principos de nomenclatura zoologica / Myths in systematics and principles of zoological nomenclature. - In: "Evolution y Filogenia de Arthropoda" (Eds.: A. Melic, J.J. de Haro, M. Mendes & I. Ribera), Zaragoza. - Boletin de la Sociedad Entomologica Aragonesa, 26, Volumen Monografico: 347-377.

Kluge N.J. 2000. [Modern systematics of insects. Part I. Principles of systematics of living organisms and general system of insects with classification of primary wingless and paleopterous insects.] - Lan', S-Petersburg, 336 pp. (in Russian).

Kluge N.J. 2004. The phylogenetic system of Ephemeroptera. - Kluwer Academic Publishers: p. i-xiii + 1-442.

Latreille P.A. 1802–1805. Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière des crustacés et des insectes. // Paris. T.1–14.

Leach W.E. 1815. Entomology. // Brewster's Edinburg Encyclopedia, Ed.1, 9(1): 57–172.

Linnaeus C. 1751. Philosophia botanica. – Stockholmiae, Apud Godorf. Kiedewetter, 362 pp.

Linnaeus C. 1753. Species plantarum. – Holmiae, 1200 pp.

Linnaeus C. 1758-1759. Systema Naturae per regna tria Naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Ed.10. Vol.1-3. // Holmiae --- A photographic facsimile of the first volume of the tenth edition. London, Brit. Mus. (N.H.) 1956: 824 p.

Nomenclator Zoologicus, 1939–1996. Vol. 1–4 (ed. S. A. Naeve), London., 1939–1940; vol. 5, 1950; vol. 6, 1966; vol. 7, 1975; vol. 8, 1993; vol. 9, 1996. Internet version – http://uio.mbl.edu/NomenclatorZoologicus/

Internet publications:

Agosti D. & Johnson N.F. (eds). 2005. AntBase (version 05/2005). World Wide Web electronic publication – http://antbase.org/

Beccaloni G.W. 2007. Blattodea Species File Online (version 1.2/3.3). World Wide Web electronic publication – http://Blattodea.SpeciesFile.org.

Beccaloni G.W., Scoble M.J., Robinson G.S. & Pitkin B. (eds). 2003. LepIndex (The Global Lepidoptera Names Index). World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/lepindex [accessed 6 January 2007]

Catalogue of the Odonata of the World. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.odonata.info

ChiloBase – a world catalogue of centipedes (Chilopoda) for the Web. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://chilobase.bio.unipd.it/docs/chilobase.php

De Prins J. & De Prins W. 2006. Global Taxonomic Database of Gracillariidae (Lepidoptera). World Wide Web electronic publication – http://gc.bebif.be 

Eades D.C. & Daniel Otte D. 2008. Orthoptera Species File Online. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://Orthoptera.SpeciesFile. 

Electronic Catalogue of Weevil names (Curculionoidea). World Wide Web electronic publication – http://wtaxa.csic.es 

Fauna Europaea. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.faunaeur.org 

Frost D.R. 2007. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference (version 5.1). World Wide Web electronic publication – http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.php .

Global Biodiversity Information Facility http://www.gbif.org

Guiry M.D. & Guiry G.M. 2008. AlgaeBase. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.algaebase.org 

Fautin D.G. 2008. Hexacorallians of the World. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://hercules.kgs.ku.edu/hexacoral/anemone2/index.cfm 

Hallan J. 2008. Biology catalog. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://entowww.tamu.edu/research/collection/hallan/ 

Lepage D. 2008. AviBase (the world bird database). World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.bsc-eoc.org/avibase/avibase.jsp 

Maddison D. R. & Schulz K.-S. (eds) 2007. The Tree of Life. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://tolweb.org 

Mathison B. 2008. World Scarabaeidae Database. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.coleoptera.org./p735.htm 

Morse J.C. (ed.) 2008. Trichoptera World Checklist. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://entweb.clemson.edu/database/trichopt 

Noyes J.S. 2008. Universal Chalcidoidea Database. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/chalcidoids 

Oosterbroek P. 2008. Catalogue of Craneflies of the World. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/ccw 

Pyle. R. ZooBank. The prototype online registry for zoological nomenclature. World Wide Web electronic publication by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature – http://www.zoobank.org

Platnick N.I. 2008. The World Spider Catalog. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog 

Robinson G.S. 2008. Global Taxonomic Database of Tineidae (Lepidoptera). World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.nhm.ac.uk./entomology/tineidae/index.html 

ScaleNet (Systematic Database of the Scale Insects of the World). World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm 

ScarabNet (Global Taxon Database, version 1.5). World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?go=http://216.73.243.70/scarabnet/first_info.html 

Schuh R.T. 2002-2005. Plant Bug Planetary Biodiversity Inventory. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://research.amnh.org/pbi/catalog 

Species Fungorum. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.speciesfungorum.org 

The Paleobiology Database. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl 

TicksBase. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.icttd.nl 

van Soest R., Boury-Esnault N., Janussen D. & Hooper J. 2005-2008. World Porifera database. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.marinespecies.org/porifera 

Williams P. 2000. Bumblebees of the World. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/bombus 

World Turtle Database. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://emys.geo.orst.edu

ZipcodeZoo. World Wide Web electronic publication – http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/E/Embidopsocus%5Fbousemani/