Skip to main content

New Gryloblattodea Species File

I have been updating Grylloblattodea Species File (GSF) since December 11, 2014, completing 163 hours of input on April 15, 2015.  What follows are some details of this work.

As of 1998, Grylloblattodea families have been placed in three infraorders.  Eleven families remain incertae sedis as to infraorder, and 18 genera are incertae sedis as to family.  There is only one extant family of Grylloblattodea and that family currently contains 5 genera and 31 species.  To update this family I added one genus and four new species.  All accompanying authors, references, publications, and citations were added to the database as well as the holotype specimen records for three of the four new species.  Any publicly available pdfs of papers were attached to the database.

The vast majority of my hours were spent updating the fossil taxa of GSF of which there are now 49 families, 280 genera, and 541 species.  There are now 306 holotype specimen records (54%) in the GSF; the literature with the information for all remaining species holotypes was not freely available online.  With additional time, many of the papers might be available through interlibrary loan and further holotype records could be input.  I do believe all other taxonomic levels of fossil taxa are current and complete.  All accompanying authors, references, publications, and citations were added to the database and any publicly available pdfs of papers were attached to the database.  

The GSF now contains 117 authors, 117 publications, 246 references, and 1,687 citations.  In the interests of time, not all author contact information and publication address details are complete as this information can be very time-consuming to locate.  There are also now 25 depositories in the database.

Interestingly, the Tree of Life webpage ( states that fossil Grylloblattids are unknown!  Extant Grylloblattids are apterous and much, if not all, of the fossil Gylloblattid taxonomy is based upon wing venation. 

Left: Grylloblattodea: Elmopterum rotundum Béthoux and Beckemeyer 2007

Clearly, workers in the field have moved many fossils out of the broader group Protorthoptera and into a more narrowly defined group of extinct Grylloblattodea.  The most recent summations of the systematics of the order may be found in Schoville, 2014 and Wipfler et al., 2014. 

I believe the GSF is the most current and complete database of Grylloblattodea available online and ready for a professional in the group to take over.  All inquiries about doing so should be directed to Ed DeWalt (


Popular posts from this blog

Insect Frenzy

This is the third in a series of posts by our intern Jeff  Jaureguy.

Day 3 June 27, 2016

         I was spoiled this morning with an amazing Norwegian breakfast called  a smothered omelet lefse wrap at the Norske Nook.  Who would have known this beautiful gem would be in such a small town.  We packed the car and headed out of the town of Hayward towards our next field site in Washburn county on the Namekagon River at Lat: 46.02739, Long: -92.01258.  This was a very large river about 80 m wide and had a blackish brownish color.  I ended up using a dip net the whole time scouring the river for aquatic insects.  I found a lot of caddisfly pupae and casings on the bottom of the river along with some local fish, my first catch!   The next site we collected at was in Burnett county at the St. Croix River at Lat: 46.07568, Long: -92.7077.  This location was a very large sinuous river with a dark brown color to the water.I collected samples using a beating sheet and stick in the river.I found a…

cc0 vs. the world

Today I had some discussion that stirred up my desire to say, in a loud voice: "But look here, if it is credit you want, then the best way to get it is if your data are cc0, it's even better than cc-by!" So I tweeted:
#informatics need a study. If a dataset/paper is CC0 does it increase the *citations* relative to *any* more restrictive CC (I suspect so).
— Matt Yoder (@mjyoder) July 30, 2014 TL;DR There are lots of hints, but apparently no direct studies that address this.

Two important bits of clarification based on my original thoughts. I was only interested in cc licensed data. I was not asking whether cc0 data is reused more than other cc- data, just whether cc0 data gets *cited* (yes, citations = bad metric, so use a generic "pointed to" perhaps) more than other cc- data, particularly cc-by.

The basic premise is that the best way to (ultimately) bring focus to your work is to make it completely free, and that this will bring more attention, in the lon…

The St Croix River