Checklists of Hawaiian Anthocerotes and Hepatics
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Tropical Bryology 28:15-47, 2006 15 Checklist of Hawaiian Anthocerotes and Hepatics G. W. Staples & C. T. Imada Hawaii Biological Survey, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, Hawai‘i, 96817-2704 U.S.A. Abstract. A literature-based checklist of Hawaiian hepatics and anthocerotes is presented. Geographic coverage includes the eight main Hawaiian Islands; the northwestern Hawaiian Islands are excluded. The checklist is alphabetically ordered by scientific names; the family is noted for each genus. Synonyms and misapplied names are cross-referenced to the accepted names. A bibliography of supporting references is included. Introduction preliminary updates to the taxonomy and distribution information while simultaneously compiling a The Hawaii Biological Survey (HBS) was established bibliography of literature that supports the names in as a program of Bishop Museum by the Hawaii State current use. Further USDA funding (2004–2006) Legislature in 1992, specifically to create and allowed much more extensive literature searching that maintain accurate inventories of all species present in enabled assembly of taxonomic information, revision the Hawaiian Islands, and to document their presence of nomenclature, addition of new taxa and with voucher specimen collections and bibliographies distributional records, and integration of all this new of relevant scientific literature. In the ensuing fourteen information into the developing checklist. In the final years, comprehensive taxonomic inventories have version of the checklist, taxonomic decisions were been compiled for many groups of organisms, both made by Staples, with review and critical input from native and alien, that comprise the Hawaiian biota. four independent bryological reviewers. Vascular plants (Wagner et al. 1999; Palmer 2003) and marine algae (Abbott 1999; Abbott & Huisman Coverage 2004) have been the primary focus of botanical It must be emphasized that this is a literature-based inventory efforts; recent research has produced taxonomic checklist, not a specimen-based inventory. checklists and bibliographies for non-marine algae It is compiled primarily from literature published (Sherwood 2004) and mosses (Staples et al. 2004). during the second half of the twentieth century to the Still much needed are similar checklists for Hawaiian present (2006). The checklist attempts to account for Cyanophyta (blue-green algae), fungi, and lichens. all scientific names in use for Hawaiian hepatics and This checklist fills one of the gaps in our knowledge anthocerotes in the latter decades of the twentieth of Hawaiian terrestrial plants—the hepatics and century; it is not a comprehensive nomenclator for all anthocerotes. These ongoing inventories will help the names that have ever been published for, or applied Hawaii Biological Survey to fulfill its mission by to, Hawaiian hepatics and anthocerotes. No systematically compiling literature-based inventories nomenclatural novelties or taxonomic changes are for each of these groups of organisms. The products initiated in this checklist. also provide a foundation for undertaking revisionary Geographically, coverage focuses on the eight main studies and floristic research. Modern comprehensive Hawaiian Islands. There are, as yet, no published floristic accounts that incorporate the latest reports for bryophytes from the uninhabited revisionary studies for all Hawaiian bryophytes are northwestern Hawaiian Islands, although a few greatly needed. collections were made there. In the last decades of the twentieth century there was Genesis of the current checklist a renaissance of bryological research worldwide, and This checklist of Hawaiian hepatics and anthocerotes as a result many revisions, floristic accounts, and began as a list of names and island distributions for several monographs have been published that impact Hawaiian taxa extracted from the Prodromus florae Hawaiian hepatic and anthocerote nomenclature. hepaticarum polynesiae (Miller et al. 1983), which Noteworthy among these are the recent works of M. covers much of the Pacific, although the title suggests L. So (So 2000, 2001a, 2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2003b, only Polynesia. Initial data extraction and creation of 2004, 2005b), which are systematically overhauling an electronic checklist were undertaken by HBS staff the taxonomy of Hawaiian hepatics and providing a members with funding from the USDA-PLANTS much better understanding of the species and their database project in 1998. We then began making distribution. These regional and global studies have TROPICAL BRYOLOGY 28 (2006) 16 STAPLES & IMADA: HAWAIIAN ANTHOCEROTES AND HEPATICS resulted in significant taxonomic changes, as well as nomenclature for particular taxa have been included reporting the discovery of several taxa new to the to enable tracking names through the literature. Islands, either rare natives or newly naturalized alien Basionyms are not distinguished from synonyms and species. This checklist aims to summarize all this are alphabetized accordingly. information in a concise format, as follows. Status Format Following the taxonomy is a column indicating status Accepted scientific name of the taxon in the Hawaiian flora: end indicates an The main body of the checklist is alphabetically endemic, ind indicates indigenous, and nat signifies organized by genus, species, and infraspecific taxon. naturalized. A ? following any of these signifies Accepted names appear in bold italic type. Authors uncertainty about the status of the taxon in the are included for the genera, species, and infraspecific Hawaiian flora. While some research has been epithets. Authors of hepatic and anthocerote genera devoted to the mode of introduction of pteridophytes have been standardized against the classification and angiosperms to Hawai‘i, resulting in a list of proposed in Bryophyte Biology (Shaw & Goffinet species likely to have been introduced by Polynesian 2000). All author names are abbreviated according to voyagers that settled the archipelago and another Authors of Plant Names style (Brummitt & Powell (much larger) list of plants that arrived following 1992). References that explain the taxonomic concept European contact, little attention has been devoted to or provide geographic distribution data are cited after bryophytes in this regard. A few hepatics collected for the accepted taxon name. For nearly all taxa, Miller et the first time late in the twentieth century are almost al. (1983) is cited. Late in the compilation it was certainly alien species that have naturalized or are in decided to cite selected earlier papers (Miller 1953, the process of doing so. The authors have used their 1963, 1967; Miller & Scott 1960; Miller et al 1962) best judgment in cases where the status is not clear that precede the Prodromus florae hepaticarum and appended a ? to whatever status we assigned, to polynesiae (Miller et al. 1983). This compensates for draw attention to the species and invite investigation the absence of voucher specimen data in the from specialists. Prodromus itself, which is an uncritical compilation of names and literature. The earlier papers frequently Island distribution cite specimens that document taxonomic concepts and Following the status category is a summary of island distribution, and their incorporation here geographic distribution on the eight main Hawaiian enables interested researchers to follow up on Islands. The island name abbreviations are explained information by studying the specimens cited in them. at the beginning of the checklist. An island The first mention of a genus includes the family abbreviation appears in the row to the right of the assignment on the same line. Most genera are still taxon name to signify that the taxon is reported in the placed in the same families recognized by Miller et al. literature from that island. Absence of the island name (1983), but a few changes in family placement have abbreviation indicates the species is not (yet) known been made since then. In such cases, we provide first from that island. Given the inadequate state of the family assignment used by Miller et al. (1983), bryological collecting in the Hawaiian Islands, many and mention alternative family placements afterward, new island distribution records are sure to be found in with a reference to the source. Our principal source the future. And rare taxa, known only from types or for genera assigned to each family were the chapters historical specimens, will be recollected and their in Bryophyte Biology (Shaw & Goffinet 2000) dealing distributions better understood. with hornwort classification (Renzaglia & Vaughn Nearly all the island distributions are abstracted from 2000) and hepatic classification (Crandall-Stotler & the literature cited in brackets following the accepted Stotler 2000). name. In some case, Miller’s earlier papers provide In a few cases we could not locate generic names in more detailed specimen citation than the Prodromus Bryophyte Biology and these names were searched in florae hepaticarum polynesiae compilation; in such the bryological nomenclator included in the W3MOST cases, the earlier papers are cited as well. And in a database of bryophytes few cases (e.g., Plagiochila) specimens determined by (http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/most.html) on specialists subsequent to their published works added the TROPICOS website. Although coverage for new island distribution data; in such cases the relevant hepatics in the latter source proved to be spotty, we voucher is cited in brackets