The need for a common reference is evident in Georgia’s unusually rich flora. The Caucasus, a mountainous region between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, supports an estimated 6,300 to 6,500 vascular plant species, about 1,600 of which are endemic. Georgia alone is thought to contain approximately 4,300 to 4,400 species, including some 300 endemic to the country.

Georgia spans about 69,700 square kilometres, with roughly two-thirds covered by mountainous terrain, and includes environments ranging from high-mountain habitats of the Greater Caucasus to the humid Colchic forests. The wider Caucasus supports many habitat types, including coastal forests, open and xerophytic woodlands, steppes, semi-deserts, mountain habitats and anthropogenic landscapes such as traditionally managed agricultural lands. Existing syntheses have provided an invaluable foundation.

The second edition of the Flora of Georgia, begun in 1971, treats about 3,800 species in 16 volumes but remains incomplete because its planned volume on grasses has not appeared. The Caucasian Flora Conspectus offers the most up-to-date regional synthesis, although it does not yet cover several major families, including Lamiaceae, Fabaceae and Rosaceae. Georgia’s 2018 checklist records 4,275 accepted species, but it does not comprehensively document synonymy, consistently separate native from introduced or naturalised plants, or cite voucher specimens for every occurrence.

Other national and regional works, including the Flora of Georgia, the Caucasian Flora Conspectus and floras of neighbouring countries, were produced at different times and use taxonomic frameworks that do not always align. Those limitations complicate comparisons among floras, ecological inventories and conservation assessments. Historical misidentifications, misapplied names and unclear synonymy can make records appear more certain than the underlying evidence warrants.

Molecular and phylogenetic research has also introduced new generic concepts without every corresponding change being incorporated into regional literature. For endemic and geographically restricted plants, the lack of modern revision is especially consequential because a local name may represent a genuine range-restricted species, a morphological form or an ecotype of a more widely distributed plant. The checklist will therefore document uncertainty rather than settle every taxonomic question in advance.

The resource will accept vascular plants at the ranks of family, genus, species and subspecies. These include ferns, fern allies, gymnosperms and angiosperms. Hybrids and nothotaxa will not be included, and taxa below the rank of subspecies will be omitted or relegated to synonymy, apart from names needed to make the nomenclatural record intelligible.

Native and naturalised species will be distinguished, but plants known only from cultivation will be excluded. A taxon will count as naturalised only when it has an established population that has reproduced locally for approximately 25 years; where the evidence is inadequate, its status will be labelled “naturalisation uncertain.” The checklist will also record endemic, non-endemic and unresolved endemism status, while comments will explain cases in which a plant’s range extends across political borders. Taxa whose identity or circumscription remains uncertain will be flagged, while presence records affected by misidentification, vague locality information or doubtful literature will receive categories such as “doubtfully native,” “reported in error” or “extinct.” Inclusion generally requires at least one citable voucher specimen in a public herbarium, preferably with a digital record available through the Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

Plausible plants lacking verified herbarium material will be separated in an appendix as “expected species,” providing a list for future verification. Taxa reported in error will also be recorded separately. Historical taxa confirmed as extinct in the wild will remain in the checklist only when vouchers document their former presence.

The resource is being built on the open-source EDIT Platform for Cybertaxonomy, whose Common Data Model can represent names, classifications, nomenclature, distribution, literature, media and specimen information. Its architecture includes a central server, a desktop editing application called TaxEditor, and web portals for publication and querying. Role-based access supports collaborative editing, while linked references and contributor credits make individual decisions traceable.

Data can be exported as CSV or Darwin Core, and the platform supports multiple writing systems, which will allow the intended English and Georgian interface to coexist with literature written in Latin, Cyrillic and Georgian scripts. EDIT is already used by more than 20 taxonomic databases, including Euro+Med PlantBase, Flora of Greece and Flora of Cyprus. Compatibility with the Euro+Med PlantBase is central to the implementation.

That dynamic inventory of vascular plants across the Euro-Mediterranean region is also maintained on EDIT and already contains information for roughly 6,200 Caucasian species across the North Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nakhchivan and Georgia. A Georgia-specific database was created from a taxon-centred export, bringing in the associated taxonomic tree and names relevant to Georgian distribution. In particular, the source reported that World Checklist of Vascular Plants distributions for Lamiaceae, Orchidaceae, Amaryllidaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Iridaceae, Fagaceae, Betulaceae and Juncaceae were recorded for the entire Caucasus or South Caucasus rather than at the country level, while ILDIS data for Fabaceae were displayed temporarily pending revised Euro+Med treatments.

Endemism and synonymy required particular care. A plant was treated as endemic to Georgia only when it was native there and not native elsewhere within the Euro+Med area; other cases were recorded as non-endemic or unresolved. Homotypic synonyms were generally adopted, while heterotypic synonyms were included when their use for Georgia was documented.

Names appearing in the Flora of Georgia but absent from Euro+Med PlantBase were entered manually. The imported backbone is therefore only a starting point. Generic and species concepts are being assessed case by case against the Flora of Georgia, the Caucasian Flora Conspectus, regional floras, taxonomic revisions, phylogenetic studies and specialist input, with the source of each adopted concept cited.

The editorial team favours stable, well-supported concepts, retains Georgian and Caucasian endemics conservatively when evidence for synonymy is insufficient, and records alternative interpretations in taxonomic notes. Public access will follow a further round of editorial revision. The working portal already links each taxon to its classification, scientific name and nomenclatural citation, synonymy, occurrence within the subdivisions used by the Flora of Georgia, supporting literature, explanatory notes and a bibliography.

Distribution annotations will connect records to their sources, allowing users to examine why a species is included or how uncertainty has been handled. The project is also considering nomenclatural types, links to specimen images, IUCN Red List categories, national conservation assessments, legal protection status and CITES listings. Carefully documented photographs and Georgian common names are longer-term additions intended to make the system more useful to teachers, conservation practitioners, naturalists, horticulturists and citizen scientists.

The checklist’s immediate value is as infrastructure for better plant records. It is expected to support national biodiversity strategies and action plans, university and school teaching, ecological surveys, taxonomic studies and conservation assessment. It may also help environmental organizations align their work with internationally recognized standards and assist citizen-science platforms such as iNaturalist by identifying gaps that require field verification.

The project does not claim that the checklist will settle every question about Georgian plant diversity. Instead, it offers a transparent, traceable and updateable foundation on which future collecting, taxonomy, phylogenetics and conservation work can build.

Subject of Research: Development of a dynamic online taxonomic checklist for Georgia’s vascular flora

Article Title: Towards an online checklist of the vascular plants of Georgia (the Caucasus)

Article References: Kikodze, D., Korotkova, N., Lachashvili, N., von Raab-Straube, E., Parolly, G., Mosulishvili, M., Khutsishvili, M., Kereselidze, K., Kharazishvili, D., Memiadze, N., Sikharulidze, S., Malekmohammadi, M., Müller, A., & Borsch, T. (2026). Towards an online checklist of the vascular plants of Georgia (the Caucasus). Caucasiana, 5, 167–191. https://doi.org/10.3897/caucasiana.5.e202743

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3897/caucasiana.5.e202743

Keywords: Georgia, vascular plants, online checklist, plant taxonomy, biodiversity informatics, herbarium vouchers, Caucasus flora, endemism, conservation, cybertaxonomy, Towards, online