DOCSLIB.ORG

Checklist and Red List of Hornworts (Anthocerotophyta) and Liverworts (Marchantiophyta) of Slovakia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Checklist and Red List of Hornworts (Anthocerotophyta) and Liverworts (Marchantiophyta) of Slovakia Biologia https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-020-00670-0 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Checklist and red list of hornworts (Anthocerotophyta) and liverworts (Marchantiophyta) of Slovakia Katarína Mišíková1 & Katarína Godovičová1 & Pavel Širka2 & Rudolf Šoltés3 Received: 29 June 2020 /Accepted: 16 December 2020 # The Author(s) 2021 Abstract The presented checklist and red list include 231 liverwort (Marchantiophyta) and two hornwort species (Anthocerotophyta). Overall, 22.9% of liverworts are evaluated as threatened (CR – 4.3%, EN – 7.8%, VU – 10.8%), while 17 of species (7.4%) are categorized as NT, 11.6% as DD and 3.0% as RE. A total of 128 species (55.4% of the liverwort flora of Slovakia) were assessed as LC. For the liverwort Lunularia cruciata the criteria were not applicable (NA), since this species is not native to Slovakia. Currently, only two hornworts are known in Slovakia, of which Anthoceros agrestis is assessed as LC and Phaeoceros carolinianus as NT. The main factors of the liverwort and hornwort endangerment and retreat are anthropogenic changes in natural conditions and degradation of the ecosystems caused by agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, climatic changes, industry, and traffic pollution. Keywords Bryophytes . Central Europe . Conservation . IUCN categories Introduction partially known with the exception of the Tatra Mountains, where distribution, chorology and the population numbers of Up to date, three editions of the Checklist of liverworts and some species are well documented (Šoltés 1990, 2002;Górski hornworts (Kubinská et al. 1993; Kubinská and Janovicová and Váňa 2014; Górski 2016, 2020). The aim of this work is 1996, 1998) and two of their updated editions (Kubinská et al. to present the current state of endangerment and nomenclatur- 2001a, b) including the Red list of bryophytes evaluated ac- al changes of liverworts and hornworts of Slovakia. cording to the IUCN criteria (IUCN 2001) have been pub- lished in Slovakia. Since then, several species new to Slovakia have been recorded. The revised checklist and red Methods list of hornworts (Anthocerotophyta) and liverworts (Marchantiophyta) follow the latest version of the Checklist All hornwort and liverwort species that have been recorded in of mosses (Bryophyta) (Mišíková et al. 2020). Based on cur- Slovakia up to the end of February 2020 were taken into rent knowledge, occurrence and threat status of hornworts and consideration. The updated checklist and red list are based liverworts are less processed compared to mosses. At present, on previous lists (Kubinská et al. 2001a, b)andaretreated data from most areas of Slovakia are absent or are only according to recently published results. Nomenclature of taxa follows the European checklist of bryophytes (Hodgetts et al. 2020), except Lophocolea coadunata. As the dioicous species * Katarína Godovičová Lophocolea coadunata was not distinguished from the [email protected] autoicous Lophocolea bidentata in Slovakia, we do not treat * Pavel Širka these species separately. Accepted names are cited in bold. [email protected] Species varieties are listed by generally distinguished taxa. 1 Department of Botany, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius Red list University in Bratislava, Révová 39, 811 02 Bratislava, Slovakia 2 Department of Phytology, Faculty of Forestry, Technical University The presented edition of the red list follows the IUCN Species in Zvolen, T. G. Masaryka 24, 960 53 Zvolen, Slovakia Survival Commission Guidelines (2012) considering the 3 Poprad, Slovakia guidelines for bryophytes (Hallingbäck 2006; Hodgetts et al. Biologia 2019). Recommendations provided by Bergamini et al. (2019) Marchantiophyta were used to define the concept of an adult individual. Anastrepta orcadensis (Hook.) Schiffn. LC. AccordingtotheIUCN(2012), the IUCN Standards and Anastrophyllum donnianum (Hook.) Steph. CR Petitions Subcommittee (2019), Hodgetts et al. (2019) and [B2ab (iii,iv); C2a (i); D] Mišíková et al. (2020), eight categories were used. Anastrophyllum hellerianum (Nees ex Lindenb.) R. M. Schust. → see under Crossocalyx hellerianus (Nees ex 1. Regionally extinct (RE): A species is Regionally Extinct Lindenb.) Meyl. when it is extinct or not confirmed since 1970 within the Anastrophyllum michauxii (F. Weber) H. Buch LC. region assessed (Slovakia), but populations can still be Anastrophyllum minutum (Schreb. ex D. Crantz) R. M. found in areas outside the region. A small chance remains Schust. → see under Sphenolobus minutus (Schreb. ex D. that such species may still persist and be rediscovered. Crantz) Berggr. 2. Critically endangered (CR): A species is Critically Anastrophyllum saxicola (Schrad.) R. M. Schust. → see Endangered when it meets the criteria for this category, under Sphenolobus saxicola (Schrad.) Steph. indicating that the species is facing an extremely high risk Aneura maxima (Schiffn.) Steph. DD1. of extinction. Aneura pinguis (L.) Dumort. LC. 3. Endangered (EN): A species is Endangered when it meets Anthelia julacea (L.) Dumort VU [B2ab (iii,iv)] criteria for endangered with a very high risk of extinction Anthelia juratzkana (Limpr.) Trevis. LC. in the region. Apometzgeria pubescens (Schrank.) Kuwah. → see under 4. Vulnerable (VU): A species is Vulnerable when it meets Metzgeria pubescens (Schrank.) Raddi. the criteria for this category, indicating that the species is Apopellia endiviifolia (Dicks.) Nebel et D. Quandt (syn. facing a high risk of extinction in the region. Pellia endiviifolia (Dicks.) Dumort.) LC. 5. Near threatened (NT): A species is Near Threatened when Asterella gracilis (F. Weber) Underw. → see under it does not meet the criteria for CR, EN or VU, but may Mannia gracilis (F.Weber) D. B. Schill et D. G. Long. likely become at risk of extinction in the near future. Asterella lindenbergiana (Corda ex Nees) Lindb. ex 6. Least concern (LC): A taxon is considered to be of Least Arnell VU [D2]. Concern if it does not qualify for CR, EN, VU or NT. Asterella saccata (Wahlenb.) A. Evans EN [B2ab (iii,iv); Species classified as Least Concern are considered at C1 + C2a(i)] low risk of extinction. Widespread and abundant species Athalamia hyalina (Sommerf.) S. Hatt. → see under are typically classified in this category. Clevea hyalina (Sommerf.) Lindb. 7. Data deficient (DD): Includes taxa for which the lack of data Barbilophozia atlantica (Kaal.) Müll. Frib. → see under does not allow an assesment of its risk of extinction. Listing Orthocaulis atlanticus (Kaal.) H. Buch. of taxa in this category indicates that more information is Barbilophozia attenuata (Mart.) Loeske → see under required and acknowledges the possibility that future re- Neoorthocaulis attenuatus (Mart.) L. Söderstr., De Roo et search will show that threatened classification is appropriate. Hedd. 8. Not applicable (NA): This category includes species oc- Barbilophozia barbata (Schmidel ex Schreb.) Loeske LC. curring outside their natural range, which cannot be eval- Barbilophozia binsteadii (Kaal.) Loeske → see under uated on the basis of the selected criteria. Neoorthocaulis binsteadii (Kaal.) L. Söderstr., De Roo et Hedd. Due to lack of appropriate information for species classifi- Barbilophozia floerkei (F. Weber et D. Mohr) Loeske → cation into threat categories, only IUCN criterion B see under Neoorthocaulis floerkei (F.Weber et D.Mohr) L. (subcriteria B1 and B2), C (subcriteria C1 and C2) and crite- Söderstr., De Roo et Hedd. rion D (subcriterion D2) (Table 1) were taken into account in Barbilophozia hatcheri (A. Evans) Loeske LC. the evaluation process. Barbilophozia kunzeana (Huebener) Müll. Frib. → see un- der Schljakovia kunzeana (Huebener) Konstant. et Vilnet. Barbilophozia lycopodioides (Wallr.) Loeske LC. Results Barbilophozia quadriloba (Lindb.) Loeske → see under Schljakovianthus quadrilobus (Lindb.) Konstant. et Vilnet. Species list Barbilophozia sudetica (Nees ex Huebener) L. Söderstr., De Roo et Hedd. (syn. Lophozia sudetica (Nees ex Huebener) Anthocerotophyta Grolle) LC. Anthoceros agrestis Paton LC. Bazzania flaccida (Dumort.) Grolle DD. Phaeoceros carolinianus (Michx.) Prosk. NT Bazzania tricrenata (Wahlenb.) Lindb. LC. [B2ab (iii,iv,v)] Bazzania trilobata (L.) Gray LC. Biologia Table 1 Explanation of applied criteria (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee 2019) Criterion B – geographic range in the form of B1 (extent of occurrence) and/or B2 (area of occupancy) CR EN VU B1 (EOO – extent of occurrence) <100 km2 <5000 km2 <20,000 km2 B2 (AOO – area of occupancy) <10 km2 <500 km2 <2000 km2 and at least 2 of the following 3 conditions a. severely fragmented or number of locations =1 ≤5 ≤10 b. continuing decline observed, inferred or projected in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) extent, area and/or habitat quality; (iv) number of locations or subpopulations; (v) number of mature individuals c. extreme fluctuations in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) number of locations or subpopulations; (iv) number of mature individuals Criterion C – Small population size and decline CR EN VU Number of mature individuals <250 <2500 <10,000 and at least one of C1 or C2 C1. An observed continuing decline of at least: 25% in 3 years or 20% in 5 years or 10% in 10 years or 3 1generation 2generation generation C2. An observed continuing decline and at least one of the following conditions: a. (i) Number of mature individuals in each subpopulation ≤50 ≤ 250 ≤1000 (ii) % of mature individuals in one subpopulation 90–100% 95–100% 100% b. extreme fluctuation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Novelties in the Hornwort Flora of Croatia and Southeast Europe
    cryptogamie Bryologie 2019 ● 40 ● 22 DIRECTEUR DE LA PUBLICATION : Bruno David, Président du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle RÉDACTEURS EN CHEF / EDITORS-IN-CHIEF : Denis LAMY ASSISTANTS DE RÉDACTION / ASSISTANT EDITORS : Marianne SALAÜN ([email protected]) MISE EN PAGE / PAGE LAYOUT : Marianne SALAÜN RÉDACTEURS ASSOCIÉS / ASSOCIATE EDITORS Biologie moléculaire et phylogénie / Molecular biology and phylogeny Bernard GOFFINET Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut (United States) Mousses d’Europe / European mosses Isabel DRAPER Centro de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Cambio Global (CIBC-UAM), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain) Francisco LARA GARCÍA Centro de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Cambio Global (CIBC-UAM), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain) Mousses d’Afrique et d’Antarctique / African and Antarctic mosses Rysiek OCHYRA Laboratory of Bryology, Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow (Pologne) Bryophytes d’Asie / Asian bryophytes Rui-Liang ZHU School of Life Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai (China) Bioindication / Biomonitoring Franck-Olivier DENAYER Faculté des Sciences Pharmaceutiques et Biologiques de Lille, Laboratoire de Botanique et de Cryptogamie, Lille (France) Écologie des bryophytes / Ecology of bryophyte Nagore GARCÍA MEDINA Department of Biology (Botany), and Centro de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Cambio Global (CIBC-UAM), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain) COUVERTURE / COVER : Extraits d’éléments de la Figure 2 / Extracts of
    [Show full text]
  • Check- and Red List of Bryophytes of the Czech Republic (2003)
    Preslia, Praha, 75: 193–222, 2003 193 Check- and Red List of bryophytes of the Czech Republic (2003) Seznam a Červený seznam mechorostů České republiky (2003) Jan K u č e r a 1 and Jiří Vá ň a 2 1University of South Bohemia, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Branišovská 31, CZ-370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic, e-mail: [email protected]; 2Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Science, Department of Botany, Benátská 2, CZ-128 01 Prague, Czech Republic, e-mail: [email protected] Kučera J. & Váňa J. (2003): Check- and Red List of bryophytes of the Czech Republic (2003). – Preslia, Praha, 75: 193–222. The second version of the checklist and Red List of bryophytes of the Czech Republic is provided. Generally accepted infraspecific taxa have been incorporated into the checklist for the first time. With respect to the Red List, IUCN criteria version 3.1 has been adopted for evaluation of taxa, and the criteria used for listing in the respective categories are listed under each red-listed taxon. Taxa without recent localities and those where extinction has not been proven are listed as a subset of DD taxa. Little known and rare non-threatened taxa with incomplete knowledge of distribution which are worthy of further investigation are listed on the so-called attention list. In total, 849 species plus 5 subspecies and 19 varieties have been accepted. 23 other historically reported species and one va- riety were evaluated as doubtful with respect to unproven but possible occurrence in the territory, and 6 other species with proven occurrence require taxonomic clarification.
    [Show full text]
  • A Revised Red List of Bryophytes in Britain
    ConservationNews Revised Red List distinguished from Extinct. This Red List uses Extinct in the Wild (EW) – a taxon is Extinct version 3.1 of the categories and criteria (IUCN, in the Wild when it is known to survive only in A revised Red List of 2001), along with guidelines produced to assist cultivation or as a naturalized population well with their interpretation and use (IUCN, 2006, outside the past range. There are no taxa in this 2008), further guidelines for using the system category in the British bryophyte flora. bryophytes in Britain at a regional level (IUCN, 2003), and specific Regionally Extinct (RE) – a taxon is regarded guidelines for applying the system to bryophytes as Regionally Extinct in Britain if there are no (Hallingbäck et al., 1995). post-1979 records and all known localities have Conservation OfficerNick Hodgetts presents the latest revised Red List for How these categories and criteria have been been visited and surveyed without success, or interpreted and applied to the British bryophyte if colonies recorded post-1979 are known to bryophytes in Britain. Dumortiera hirsuta in north Cornwall. Ian Atherton flora is summarized below, but anyone interested have disappeared. It should be appreciated that in looking into them in more depth should regional ‘extinction’ for bryophytes is sometimes he first published Red List of et al. (2001) and Preston (2010), varieties and consult the original IUCN documents, which less final than for other, more conspicuous bryophytes in Britain was produced subspecies have been disregarded. are available on the IUCN website (www. organisms. This may be because bryophytes are in 2001 as part of a Red Data Book 1980 has been chosen as the cut-off year to iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories- easily overlooked, or because their very efficient for bryophytes (Church et al., 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Additions to the Bryophyte Flora of Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh, India 1
    Additions to the Bryophyte flora of Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh, India 1 Additions to the Bryophyte flora of Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh, India 1 1 2 KRISHNA KUMAR RAWAT , VINAY SAHU , CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH , PRAVEEN 3 KUMAR VERMA 1 CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow -226001, India: [email protected], [email protected] 2AED/BPSG/EPSA, pace Applications Center, ISRO, Ahmadabad-380015, Gujarat, India: [email protected] 3Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, India: [email protected] Abstract: Rawat, K.K; Sahu, V.; Singh, C.P.; Verma, P.K. (2017): Additions to the Bryophyte flora of Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Frahmia 14:1-17. A total of 30 taxa of bryophytes are reported for the first time from Tawang district of Arunachal Pradesh, India, including 10 taxa as new to Arunachal Pradesh. 1. Introduction The district Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh, India, is located in extreme western corner of the state between 27º25’ & 27º45’N and 91º42’ & 92º39’ E covering an area of 2,172 km2 and is bordered with Tibet (China) to North, Bhutan to south-west and west Kameng district towards east. The bryo-floristic information of the area was unknown till Vohra and Kar (1996) published an account of 82 species of mosses from Arunachal Pradesh, including 12 from Tawang. Rawat and Verma (2014) published an account of 23 species of liverworts from Tawang. Recently Ellis et al (2016a, 2016b) reported two mosses viz., Splachnum sphaericum Hedw. and Polytrichastrum alpinum (Hedw.) G.L. Sm. from Tawang. The present paper provides additional information of 30 more bryophyte taxa from Tawang district of Arunachal Pradesh, making a sum of 67 bryophytes known so far from the district.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthocerotophyta
    Glime, J. M. 2017. Anthocerotophyta. Chapt. 2-8. In: Glime, J. M. Bryophyte Ecology. Volume 1. Physiological Ecology. Ebook 2-8-1 sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. Last updated 5 June 2020 and available at <http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/bryophyte-ecology/>. CHAPTER 2-8 ANTHOCEROTOPHYTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Anthocerotophyta ......................................................................................................................................... 2-8-2 Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 2-8-10 Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... 2-8-10 Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................................... 2-8-10 2-8-2 Chapter 2-8: Anthocerotophyta CHAPTER 2-8 ANTHOCEROTOPHYTA Figure 1. Notothylas orbicularis thallus with involucres. Photo by Michael Lüth, with permission. Anthocerotophyta These plants, once placed among the bryophytes in the families. The second class is Leiosporocerotopsida, a Anthocerotae, now generally placed in the phylum class with one order, one family, and one genus. The genus Anthocerotophyta (hornworts, Figure 1), seem more Leiosporoceros differs from members of the class distantly related, and genetic evidence may even present
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Liverworts and Hornworts of the Interior Highlands of North America in Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri and Oklahoma
    Checklist of the Liverworts and Hornworts of the Interior Highlands of North America In Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri and Oklahoma Stephen L. Timme T. M. Sperry Herbarium ‐ Biology Pittsburg State University Pittsburg, Kansas 66762 and 3 Bowness Lane Bella Vista, AR 72714 [email protected] Paul Redfearn, Jr. 5238 Downey Ave. Independence, MO 64055 Introduction Since the last publication of a checklist of liverworts and hornworts of the Interior Highlands (1997)), many new county and state records have been reported. To make the checklist useful, it was necessary to update it since its last posting. The map of the Interior Highlands of North America that appears in Redfearn (1983) does not include the very southeast corner of Kansas. However, the Springfield Plateau encompasses some 88 square kilometers of this corner of the state and includes limestone and some sandstone and shale outcrops. The vegetation is typical Ozarkian flora, dominated by oak and hickory. This checklist includes liverworts and hornworts collected from Cherokee County, Kansas. Most of what is known for the area is the result of collections by R. McGregor published in 1955. The majority of his collections are deposited in the herbarium at the New York Botanical Garden (NY). This checklist only includes the region defined as the Interior Highlands of North America. This includes the Springfield Plateau, Salem Plateau, St. Francois Mountains, Boston Mountains, Arkansas Valley, Ouachita Mountains and Ozark Hills. It encompasses much of southern Missouri south of the Missouri River, southwest Illinois; most of Arkansas except the Mississippi Lowlands and the Coastal Plain, the extreme southeastern corner of Kansas, and eastern Oklahoma (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • An Annotated Checklist of Bryophytes of Europe, Macaronesia and Cyprus
    Journal of Bryology ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjbr20 An annotated checklist of bryophytes of Europe, Macaronesia and Cyprus N. G. Hodgetts , L. Söderström , T. L. Blockeel , S. Caspari , M. S. Ignatov , N. A. Konstantinova , N. Lockhart , B. Papp , C. Schröck , M. Sim-Sim , D. Bell , N. E. Bell , H. H. Blom , M. A. Bruggeman-Nannenga , M. Brugués , J. Enroth , K. I. Flatberg , R. Garilleti , L. Hedenäs , D. T. Holyoak , V. Hugonnot , I. Kariyawasam , H. Köckinger , J. Kučera , F. Lara & R. D. Porley To cite this article: N. G. Hodgetts , L. Söderström , T. L. Blockeel , S. Caspari , M. S. Ignatov , N. A. Konstantinova , N. Lockhart , B. Papp , C. Schröck , M. Sim-Sim , D. Bell , N. E. Bell , H. H. Blom , M. A. Bruggeman-Nannenga , M. Brugués , J. Enroth , K. I. Flatberg , R. Garilleti , L. Hedenäs , D. T. Holyoak , V. Hugonnot , I. Kariyawasam , H. Köckinger , J. Kučera , F. Lara & R. D. Porley (2020) An annotated checklist of bryophytes of Europe, Macaronesia and Cyprus, Journal of Bryology, 42:1, 1-116, DOI: 10.1080/03736687.2019.1694329 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03736687.2019.1694329 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 28 May 2020. UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2747 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 28 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjbr20 JOURNAL OF BRYOLOGY 2020, VOL. 42, NO. 1, 1–116 https://doi.org/10.1080/03736687.2019.1694329 BRYOLOGICAL MONOGRAPH An annotated checklist of bryophytes of Europe, Macaronesia and Cyprus N.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Plant Science Today (2016) 3(2): 226-236 226 http://dx.doi.org/10.14719/pst.2016.3.2.215 ISSN: 2348-1900 Plant Science Today http://horizonepublishing.com/journals/index.php/PST Research Communication Check list of Anthocerophyta and Marchantiophyta of Pakistan and Kashmir Jan Alam,1* Ibad Ali,1 Suhail Karim,1 Mazhar-ul-Islam1 and Habib Ahmad2 1Department of Botany, Hazara University, Mansehra-21300, Pakistan 2Department of Genetics, Hazara University, Mansehra-21300, Pakistan Article history Abstract Received: 16 March 2016 In the present study, a review of previously published literature regarding Accepted: 13 April 2016 Published: 22 June 2016 Anthocerophyta and Marchantiophyta of Pakistan and Kashmir has been done in order to know the diversity of these groups. Previous contributions collectively reveal 122 taxa distributed in 36 genera and 24 families. Of these © Alam et al. (2016) 118 taxa (97.52%) are belonging to the Marchantiophyta, while the rest of 4 species (3.30%) members to Anthocerophyta. Aytoniaceae is the largest family Special Section: New Frontiers in with 16 species. Genera-wise, Riccia is the largest genus with 12 species. An Cryptogamic Botany average number of species/genera is c. 3.36. A major portion of Pakistan is still un-explored especially Sindh and Balochistan province of Pakistan, and on the Section Editor basis of this study it can be said that many more taxa will be added to the list. Afroz Alam Keywords Anthocerophyta; Bryoflora; Marchantiophyta; Pakistan Publisher Horizon e-Publishing Group Alam, J., I. Ali, S. Karim, M. Islam and H. Ahmad. 2016. Check list of Corresponding Author Anthocerophyta and Marchantiophyta of Pakistan and Kashmir.
    [Show full text]
  • About the Book the Format Acknowledgments
    About the Book For more than ten years I have been working on a book on bryophyte ecology and was joined by Heinjo During, who has been very helpful in critiquing multiple versions of the chapters. But as the book progressed, the field of bryophyte ecology progressed faster. No chapter ever seemed to stay finished, hence the decision to publish online. Furthermore, rather than being a textbook, it is evolving into an encyclopedia that would be at least three volumes. Having reached the age when I could retire whenever I wanted to, I no longer needed be so concerned with the publish or perish paradigm. In keeping with the sharing nature of bryologists, and the need to educate the non-bryologists about the nature and role of bryophytes in the ecosystem, it seemed my personal goals could best be accomplished by publishing online. This has several advantages for me. I can choose the format I want, I can include lots of color images, and I can post chapters or parts of chapters as I complete them and update later if I find it important. Throughout the book I have posed questions. I have even attempt to offer hypotheses for many of these. It is my hope that these questions and hypotheses will inspire students of all ages to attempt to answer these. Some are simple and could even be done by elementary school children. Others are suitable for undergraduate projects. And some will take lifelong work or a large team of researchers around the world. Have fun with them! The Format The decision to publish Bryophyte Ecology as an ebook occurred after I had a publisher, and I am sure I have not thought of all the complexities of publishing as I complete things, rather than in the order of the planned organization.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Cape Town
    The copyright of this thesis rests with the University of Cape Town. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non-commercial research purposes only. University of Cape Town Addendum (1) Soon after submitting this thesis a more recent comprehensive classification by Crandall-Stotler et al. (2009)1 was published. This recent publication does not undermine the information presented in this thesis. The purpose of including the comprehensive classification of Crandall-Stotler and Stotler (2000) was specifically to introduce some of the issues regarding the troublesome classification of this group of plants. Crandall-Stotler and Stotler (2000), Grolle and Long (2000) for Europe and Macaronesia and Schuster (2002) for Austral Hepaticae represent three previously widely used yet differing opinions regarding Lophoziaceae classification. They thus reflect a useful account of some of the motivation for initiating this project in the first place. (2) Concurrently or soon after chapter 2 was published by de Roo et al. (2007)2 more recent relevant papers were published. These include Heinrichs et al. (2007) already referred to in chapter 4, and notably Vilnet et al. (2008)3 examining the phylogeny and systematics of the genus Lophozia s. str. The plethora of new information regarding taxa included in this thesis is encouraging and with each new publication we gain insight and a clearer understanding these fascinating little plants. University of Cape Town 1 Crandall-Stotler, B., Stotler, R.E., Long, D.G. 2009. Phylogeny and classification of the Marchantiophyta.
    [Show full text]
  • North American H&A Names
    A very tentative and preliminary list of North American liverworts and hornworts, doubtless containing errors and omissions, but forming a basis for updating the spreadsheet of recognized genera and numbers of species, November 2010. Liverworts Blasiales Blasiaceae Blasia L. Blasia pusilla L. Fossombroniales Calyculariaceae Calycularia Mitt. Calycularia crispula Mitt. Calycularia laxa Lindb. & Arnell Fossombroniaceae Fossombronia Raddi Fossombronia alaskana Steere & Inoue Fossombronia brasiliensis Steph. Fossombronia cristula Austin Fossombronia foveolata Lindb. Fossombronia hispidissima Steph. Fossombronia lamellata Steph. Fossombronia macounii Austin Fossombronia marshii J. R. Bray & Stotler Fossombronia pusilla (L.) Dumort. Fossombronia longiseta (Austin) Austin Note: Fossombronia longiseta was based on a mixture of material belonging to three different species of Fossombronia; Schuster (1992a p. 395) lectotypified F. longiseta with the specimen of Austin, Hepaticae Boreali-Americani 118 at H. An SEM of one spore from this specimen was previously published by Scott and Pike (1988 fig. 19) and it is clearly F. pusilla. It is not at all clear why Doyle and Stotler (2006) apply the name to F. hispidissima. Fossombronia texana Lindb. Fossombronia wondraczekii (Corda) Dumort. Fossombronia zygospora R.M. Schust. Petalophyllum Nees & Gottsche ex Lehm. Petalophyllum ralfsii (Wilson) Nees & Gottsche ex Lehm. Moerckiaceae Moerckia Gottsche Moerckia blyttii (Moerch) Brockm. Moerckia hibernica (Hook.) Gottsche Pallaviciniaceae Pallavicinia A. Gray, nom. cons. Pallavicinia lyellii (Hook.) Carruth. Pelliaceae Pellia Raddi, nom. cons. Pellia appalachiana R.M. Schust. (pro hybr.) Pellia endiviifolia (Dicks.) Dumort. Pellia endiviifolia (Dicks.) Dumort. ssp. alpicola R.M. Schust. Pellia endiviifolia (Dicks.) Dumort. ssp. endiviifolia Pellia epiphylla (L.) Corda Pellia megaspora R.M. Schust. Pellia neesiana (Gottsche) Limpr. Pellia neesiana (Gottsche) Limpr.
    [Show full text]
  • Revision of the Russian Marchantiales. Ii. a Review of the Genus Asterella P
    Arctoa (2015) 24: 294-313 doi: 10.15298/arctoa.24.26 REVISION OF THE RUSSIAN MARCHANTIALES. II. A REVIEW OF THE GENUS ASTERELLA P. BEAUV. (AYTONIACEAE, HEPATICAE) РЕВИЗИЯ ПОРЯДКА MARCHANTIALES В РОССИИ. II. OБЗОР РОДА ASTERELLA P. BEAUV. (AYTONIACEAE, HEPATICAE) EUGENY A. BOROVICHEV1,2, VADIM A. BAKALIN3,4 & ANNA A. VILNET2 ЕВГЕНИЙ А. БОРОВИЧЕВ1,2, ВАДИМ А. БАКАЛИН3,4, АННА А. ВИЛЬНЕТ2 Abstract The genus Asterella P. Beauv. includes four species in Russia: A. leptophylla and A. cruciata are restricted to the southern flank of the Russian Far East and two others, A. saccata and A. lindenbergiana occur mostly in the subartcic zone of Asia and the northern part of European Russia. Asterella cruciata is recorded for the first time in Russia. The study of the ribosomal LSU (or 26S) gene and trnL-F cpDNA intron confirmed the placement of Asterella gracilis in the genus Mannia and revealed the close relationship of A. leptophylla and A. cruciata, and the rather unrelated position of A. saccata and A. lindenbergiana. The phylogenetic tree includes robustly supported terminal clades, however with only weak support for deeper nodes. In general, Asterella species and M. gracilis from Russia show low levels of infraspecific variation. An identification key and species descriptions based on Russian specimens are provided, along with details of specimens examined, ecology and diagnostic characters of species. Резюме Род Asterella P. Beauv. представлен в России четырьмя видами: A. leptophylla и A. cruciata ограничены в распространении югом российского Дальнего Востока, а два других вида, A. saccata и A. lindenbergiana, распространены преимущественно в субарктической Азии и северной части европейской России.
    [Show full text]