IUCN Red List data observations

The IUCN names below appear nowhere in the Catalogue of Life, neither as accepted names nor as synonyms, and a search for similar spellings within the same genus and species epithet found no close candidate either. A further check looked up each taxon's other IUCN-listed names; those are absent from CoL too. Taxa where such a name was found have their own page: Names absent from the Catalogue of Life where another name for the taxon is present.

Each of these names is also looked up on Wikidata and English Wikipedia. Of the 745 taxa, 371 have a Wikidata item, 165 have an English Wikipedia article, and 23 have an alternative name recorded there that is in the Catalogue of Life, usually a genus transfer CoL has made and the Red List has not. For the rest this check adds nothing, which is itself worth knowing: most have neither a Wikidata item nor a Wikipedia article, so the name is not in use in any source the check covers.

Why it matters

For nearly all of these taxa there is no route into the Catalogue of Life: not the name, not a near spelling, not another name for the taxon. The exceptions are the 23 where Wikidata or Wikipedia records a name that is in CoL, usually a genus transfer CoL has made and the Red List has not. For the rest, the likely reasons vary: the name may be newer than the CoL release compared against, may come from a source CoL does not yet cover, or may be spelled differently enough that no match is found.

Suggestion

Use this as a list to spot-check against current literature. Many entries are expected to be legitimately newer than the Catalogue of Life release compared against (its version is given above under Source).