The wording in the source description column on the master list for the Bern convention is

However, the appendices text is actually as follows:

APPENDIX I  - STRICTLY PROTECTED FLORA SPECIES
APPENDIX II - STRICTLY PROTECTED FAUNA SPECIES
APPENDIX III - PROTECTED FAUNA SPECIES

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Tr … ml/104.htm

so I don't think that, "special protection to the most vulnerable or threatened species (including migratory species) (listed in Appendix 3)" is correct?

We use this spreadsheet for attaching summary status information to records when exporting to GIS. It is also a very handy reference document.

There is one simple change that would be very helpful - can the taxonversionkey column please be included on the "summary for each taxon" sheet? We currently have to join the "Master List" sheet to this sheet in order to get the summary info associated with a taxonversionkey. (I would actually prefer the taxonlistitemkey, but can live with taxonversionkey).

In the process of joining the "Master List" with the "summary for each taxon" sheet I noticed that there were a handful of scientific names that didn't exactly match between the two sheets, which was surprising (They weren't important to us so I didn't worry about fixing).

Regards, Keith

There seem to be a few species that are in the "Summary for each taxon", but not in the "Master List":

Species listed in the Summary page ("current taxon name" column) that I can't find in the equivalent column in the Master List:
Amphiporus hastatus
Aspicilia simoÙnsis
Carinoma armandi
Ceratophyllus (Emmareus) fionnus
Cerebratulus fuscus
Craterium aureonucleatum
Cribraria minutissima
Dianema nivale
Diderma asteroides
Diderma lucidum
Diderma lyallii
Diderma sauteri
Diderma trevelyanii
Emplectonema neesii
Japewia tornoÙnsis
Labia minor
Lamproderma atrosporum
Lamproderma carestiae
Lamproderma cribrarioides
Lamproderma sauteri
Listerella paradoxa
Nemertopsis flavida
Ochrolechia frigida forma lapuÙnsis
Physarum confertum
Physarum globuliferum
Physarum mucosum
Physarum nudum
Physarum penetrale
Physarum scoticum
Procephalothrix filiformis
Psammamphiporus elongatus
Ramphogordius sanguineus
Tetrastemma robertianae
Tetrastemma vermiculus
Trichia fimicola
Tubulanus linearis

The two I've investigated further (I've only looked at invertebrates) are both on the "Scottish_Biodiversity_List" but do not have any other listing:
- Lesser Earwig, Labia minor
- a flea, Ceratophyllus (Emmareus) fionnus

Martin

Oh dear, I'm beginning to wish I hadn't started to look at this! What I've been doing today is trying to check the list of invertebrate national statuses held within MapMate. I'm aware that the MapMate list is somewhat inconsistent and out-of-date in places, so wanted to check it against the JNCC list.

This is proving hugely time-consuming though; I've found over 1,000 invertebrate species that have a national status in the MapMate species dictionary but do not directly match to the species in the JNCC spreadsheet. A lot of this is the result of the usual discrepancies in nomenclature between MapMate, the spreadsheet, and the originally published red data books and reviews, but some other issues arise as well.

The JNCC spreadsheet does not recognise the widely-used national statuses for macro-moths - these are published in various places (e.g. the field guide by Waring, Townsend and Lewington) but have never been published by JNCC, and hence the spreadsheet still has the very out-of-date statuses from the 1987 insect Red Data Book (and has no nationally scarce category for macro-moths).

NCC published a review of Nationally Scarce spiders in 1990, but this has not been incorporated into the spreadsheet, so there are only RDB statuses for spiders, based on the 1987 Red Data Book.

One oddity I came across is that Carabus intricatus, Blue Ground Beetle, was published in the JNCC review as RDB1 (and shown as such in the online NBN species dictionary), but has not been given RDB status in the spreadsheet (although it is shown as BAP etc.).

On the MapMate side, things are also erratic, e.g. the statuses for true bugs (Hemiptera) do not line up with the published review, in some cases due to the retention of statuses assigned in the 1987 insect Red Data Book that should have been superseded by the 1992 JNCC review. The more recent reviews published by JNCC (e.g. parts 2 and 3 of the Diptera) have not been added to MapMate. And in several taxon groups statuses seem to have been invented for species with no published source to back them up (possibly the result of errors, possibly based on the opinions of the checklist compilers, it's not clear).

(And it may be worth mentioning that the newly re-published review of water beetles is not yet on the JNCC spreadsheet nor in MapMate, but it only came out in August!. See http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-5488)

The upshot of all this is that there is still no one place where one can reliably find a full list of invertebrate statuses, making it enormously time-consuming to provide consistent information, e.g. for survey reports. The JNCC spreadsheet is making good progress in bringing together all the multifarious lists that we seem to delight in producing, but there's more to be done to try and make sense of it all. (And I still dream of a day when the MapMate and NBN species dictionaries can be made to talk to each other.)

Anna,

Thanks for that response, good to know that Teresa's thread is bring looked at.

A few more items:

The bee Lasioglossum leucopus is listed as RDB3, but as far as I can see this species has never been given a rare or scarce status.

The ant Anergetes atratulus is listed under some headings, but I believe it should also be shown as RDBK.

The weevil Trachyphloeus asperatus should be Notable:B, not A

The leafhopper Aphrodes limicola is correctly given as a designated name with status Notable, but has been synonymised with Anoscopus albifrons as the current; this synonymy was shown in Le Quesne and Payne's 1981 RES key but as far as I can tell limicola is currently treated as a good species, separate from albifrons, so should be reinstated as a Notable species in its own right, and there shouldn't be a Notable status shown against the name Anoscopus albifrons.

As far as I can tell, some 30-40 invertebrate species are duplicated under different synonyms in the spreadsheet. In some case the same status is given for each synonym, which is arguably not a problem, but in others the two different versions have been given diffferent statuses, e.g. where a species appeared under one name in the original insect Red Data Book and was then revised under a different name in a subsequent Review. I can pass on the list of duplicates that I've found so far if that would help.

Martin

This is a very useful thread!  I've been using the Taxon designations spreadsheet to help with Local Sites selection, but the IUCN website entries for some groups appear to be different from those on the spreadsheet.  At first I assumed that this was just the aforementioned butterfly list, which has now been updated.  I noticed this when I checked the new (Oct) list and saw the differences.  I have now gone back through my work and corrected these.  However, I've looked a bit further than just the butterflies. The first October download (20101001) also has some Red List differences.  For example, the IUCN website lists White-clawed crayfish as Endangered, whereas the spreadsheet has it down as "Global Red List Status: Vulnerable, as does the National Red List website.  This remains the same on the latest download (20101022).

Having investigated other groups, I conclude that the IUCN listings are mostly different from those on the IUCN website, and may or may not relate to the National Red lists website.  This includes stoneworts, mosses, mammals (e.g. otters - Near Threatened on the IUCN website, but no Red List entry on the spreadsheet, and only entered for Ireland/NI on the National lists; Barbastelle bat, Near Threatened on both main and National Red List websites, but no IUCN listing in the spreadsheet).  I haven't got time to check all the others. 

Is there any quick way that we can have a up to date version of the Red List categories? I feel that we can't rely on the spreadsheet at the moment, and we really need to know which species in the county are red listed according to IUCN criteria. 

Possibly the Red List entries got scrambled in the spreadsheet?

Thanks for these changes Mary. Could I please request one more change for the next revision...?

On the Summary sheet the Birds Directive entries say "BirdsDir:Annex I or II". As we wish to distinguish Annex I species from Annex II it would be helpful to have these say "BirdsDir:Annex I" or "BirdsDir:Annex II" as appropriate. (We found that we still need to link in the Master List in order to make this distinction).

(If you are able to do this, then for completeness "Bonn:Annex 1 or 2" and "HabDir:Annex II or IV or V" could be similarly changed).

Many thanks, Keith

Hi all,

A couple more amendments:

Teresa - we have amended the source description for the Bern Convention.

Mark - not sure how these errors crept in but have:
a) removed the common name for Numenius minutus as designated under the 'Bonn Convention' as this was incorrect and the original list did not specifiy a common name.
b) amended the scientific name for Whimbrel to Numenius phaeopus where designated under the 'Birds of Conservation Concern 3' list.

Thanks again everyone, this is really helpful.
Mary

I'm glad everyone is finding the thread useful and Mary is making the changes - brilliant. Crowd sourcing at its best!

Another bat-related one from me:
Pipistrellus pygmaeus is listed as Bern Appendix 3 in both the master and summary lists. It should be Bern Appendix 2.
Refs:
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/FR/Tr … f%C3%A8res
http://www.unep-wcmc.org/isdb/Taxonomy/ … Country=GB

Hi Martin,

With both the notable moths and the spiders, the statuses are considered to be out-of-date and therefore not appropriate for use. We have been advised against including them in the collation, although I am not sure why they were not originally included. I understand this leaves gaps - both are currently being reviewed and updates will hopefully be released soon.

Best wishes, Mary

Hi Mary,
is there any likelihood of an update to the IUCN categories any time soon?  I note that in the latest version of the spreadsheet they still do not always accord with the current Global or National lists on the IUCN websites.  It would be very useful to have an updated list, as it takes a long time to pick through the various websites.  I have also got quite a task undoing all the work I did earlier in the assumption that the spreadsheet was correct, so I don't want to risk getting it wrong again!

Dear all,

An update of the spreadsheet is now available, containing the 2010 global red list, NI priority species and the OSPAR list. All changes including new lists, format changes and corrections have been documented in the updates sheet.

Teresa, this now includes the global red listings for bats but no european red listings. The only exception is  Myotis alcathoe which wasn't listed in the download data, will look into this discrepancy.

Martin, the red list for water beetles is also in this update.

Best wishes, Mary