DOCSLIB.ORG

Notes on Two Southern South American Species of Brachytheciaceae (Musci)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Notes on Two Southern South American Species of Brachytheciaceae (Musci) Journ. Hat/od Bot. Lab. No. 66: 321-330 (June 1989) NOTES ON TWO SOUTHERN SOUTH AMERICAN SPECIES OF BRACHYTHECIACEAE (MUSCI) CELINA M. MATTERIl AND R YSZARD O CHYRA2 ABSTRACT. Kindbergia praelonga (Hedw.) Ochyra is reported for the first time from South America on the basis of a collection from the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands. The Malvinas Islands' plants are briefly described and illustrated. The nomenclatural problems associated with the names Kindbergia Ochyra and Oxyrrhynchium (Schimp. in B. S. G.) Warns!. are treated at length. EllrhYII­ chium Schimp. in B. S. G. subg. OxyrrhYllchium Schimp. in B. S. G. is lectotypified with E. velutilloides Schimp. in B. S. G. [= Cirriphyllum reichenbachianum (Hueb.) Wijk et Marg.] and accordingly this subgenus has to be considered synonymous with Cirriphyllum G rout. The taxonomic status of Sciaromium flavidulum Dusen is discussed and the species is placed in sy nonymy with Eurhynchilll11 juegianwn Card. The sporophytes of E. juegianul11 are described for the first time and the distribu­ tion map of these species in austral South America is presented. Species of the family Brachytheciaceae are well represented in the moss flora of southern South America and as a rule they are significant constituents of floor vegeta­ tion. The majority of them belong to the cosmopolitan genus Brachythecium, while the other genera such as Eurhynchium, Eurhynchiella, Eriodon and Catagoniopsis are represented by single species. Nevertheless, species of Brachytheciaceae are poorly known taxonomically in this region and therefore the real number of species cannot yet be determined. This account includes short taxonomic notes on two species of Brachyt heciaceae in southern South America, one of which, Kindbergia praelonga (Hedw.) Ochyra, is a new record from the area. 1. Kindbergia praelonga (Hedw.) Ochyra, Lindbergia 8 : 54. 1982. During the course of examination of moss collections from the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands (Matteri 1986), it was discovered a single specimen of Kindbergia praelonga, a species not previously reported from southern South America. The species is common and locally abundant throughout the temperate regions in the Northern Hemisphere (Menzel & Schultze-Motel 1987), though it exhibits a clear dependence on a moist oceanic climate. Outside the Holarctic K. praelonga has so far been reported from ew Zealand (Sainsbury 1955), southern Australia and Tasmania (Scott & Stone 1976, Catcheside 1980, 1982) as well as from the Uluguru 1 Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia", Av. A. Gallardo 470, C. C. 220, Buenos Aires 1405 y Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 2 Laboratory of Bryology, Institute of Botany, Polish Academy or Sciences, Lubicz 46, PL-31-512, Krak6w, Poland. 322 Journ. Hattori Bot. Lab. No. 66 1 989 I SOJ.!m C. M. MATIERI & R. OCHYRA: Two South American species of Brachytheciaceae 323 Mountains in Tanzania in East Africa (Bizot & Pocs 1974). In the Neotropics the species has only been discovered at solitary and highly disjunct stations at higher elevations in the Northern Andes of Peru, Ecuador and Colombia (Mitten 1869, Robinson 1967, Magdefrau 1983, Menzel & Schultze-Motel 1987) as well as from the Cordillera of Costa Rica (Bowers 1970, 1974), Guatemala (Bartram 1949), and Mexi::o (Crum 1951). The Malvinas Islands' material (Isla Soledad, Puerto Argentino, leg. M. Rumboll, 3 27 November 1971 - CM 3855 , KRAM) was collected in sterile condition in damp grassland surrounding the town, growing with a few stems of Dicranella hookeri (c. Muel!.) Card. Because the Malvinas Islands' population occurs near a harbour and has never been recorded elsewhere in the islands, the species is very likely to have been introduced, as is the case in Australia. K. praelonga in that continent is a weedy plant thriving in damp grasslands including lawns, and Scott and Stone (1976) have suggested it may be introduced there, at least in part of its range. Likewise, Catcheside (1982) treats K. praelonga as a "weedy species introduced by man" in South Australia. Kindbergia praelonga shows considerable variation, especially in leaf shape, branching pattern and robustness of plants. Consequently, the species has been divided into a great number of varieties and forms, of which K. praelonga var. stokesii (Turn.) Ochyra is sometimes considered as a distinct species. However, all of these forms seem to be caused by environmental conditions and are worthless taxonomically. The Malvinas Islands' specimens (Fig. 1) are relatively Large, somewhat rigid and dull green plants with stems more or less regularly pinnately branched and very crowded branch leaves. They agree well with many Holarctic populations which are usually named K. prae/onga var. stokesii. Nevertheless, intermediates between this and the type variety of the species are so frequent that they can be named only at random. Therefore recognition of this variety does not seem to be justified. Kindbergia is a distinct genus of the Brachytheciaceae which is primarily charac­ terized by distinctive heterophylly between stem and branch leaves and this is also clearly visible on the Malvinas Islands' plants. The stem leaves are spreading, widely cordate-triangular to ovate-triangular, longly decurrent, 1.0-l.4 mm long, 0.5--0.8 mm wide, abruptly narrowed into a long and squarrose acumen and with plane, denticulate margins and a costa reaching at the outmost the base of an acumen. The branch leaves are erect-spreading to patent when wet, much narrower than the stem leaves, ovate to ovate-lanceolate, not very decurrent, 0.7- l.0 mm long, 0.3-0.5 mm wide, gradually tapering and narrowly acute with plane and sharply serrate margins. The costa is single, though sometimes branched above, extending 1/2-5/6 the leaf length and ending with a small but conspicuous dorsal spine. FIG. I. Kindbergia praelonga (Hedw.) Ochyra. 1 - habit; 2 - branch leaves; 3 - apex of branch leaf; 4 - median cells of branch leaf; 5 - lower cells of branch leaf; 6,7 - transverse sections of stem leaves ; 8 - stem leaves; 9 - transverse section of the stem (all drawn from Matte'; 3855 - BA). 3 The private herbarium of Celina M. Matteri is presently housed at BA. 324 Journ. Hattori Bot. Lab. No. 66 1 989 Kindbergia praelonga has traditionalIy been classified as a species of Eurhynchium Schimp. in B. S. G. or Oxyrrhynchium (Schimp. in B. S. G.) Warnst. The taxonomic position of this species has been complicated by different interpretations of the type collection of Hypnum praelongum Hedw. This name has been employed not only in the generalIy accepted sense, but also to refer to the species which is usually named Eurhynchium hians (Hedw.) Sande Lac. by authors such as Bruch et al. (1854), Warnstorf (1906), and Nyholm (1965). This problem has been settled by Touw and Knol (1978), who lectotypified Hypnum praelongum Hedw. with Dillenius' (1742: 258, t. 35, f. 15) material of "Hypnum repens jilicinum, triangu/aribus parvis Joliis, prae/ongum." This corresponds with the widely accepted concept of the species and includes plants with distinctive heterophylly. Another problem which is strictly associated with the taxonomic concept of Hypnum praelongum is the proper generic position of this species and its relatives. TraditionalIy, they have been placed either in Eurhynchium or in Oxyrrhynchium. Robinson (1967) segregated them into a separate genus, Stokesiella (Kindb.) Robins., and for the type of this genus he selected Hypnum stokesii Turn., which is a taxonomic synonym of Hypnu:c1 prae/ongum Hedw. (Touw & Knol 1978). Stokesiella (Kindb.) Robins. proved to be a later homonym of Stokesiella Lemmermann (Chrysophyta), and a new substitute name Kindbergia was proposed as a replacement for it by Ochyra (1982). By an oversight, the type of Kindbergia was incorrectly indicated to be K. praelonga (Hedw.) Ochyra (Hypnum prae/ongum Hedw.), but according to Art. 72 of the [eBN, an avowed substitute name must be based upon the same type. Thus the correct type of the genus Kindbergia is Hypnum stokesii Turn. which, fortunately, is a taxonomic synonym of Hypnum praelongum Hedw.; hence the resultant species is the ~a me. Although Kindbergia is a sound genus and its name is established by the rules of nomenclature, some bryologists could argue that this is a superfluous name for Oxyrrhynchium. Bruch et al. (1854) established Oxyrrhynchium as a subgenus of Eurhynchium and placed in it seven species, but none was indicated as its type. These species are currently referred to Cirriphy//um Grout, Palamocladium C. Muell. and Kindbergia Ochyra. Warnstorf (1906) correctly elevated this subgenus to generic rank, but also without indication of the type species. Of the seven species originally placed in the subgenus Oxyrrhynchium by Bruch et al. (1854), he placed only Oxyr­ rhynchium prae/ongum (Hedw.) Warnst. in the genus, though his concept of this species evidently included plants now called Eurhynchium hians. The other three species placed by Warnstorf (1906) in Oxyrrhynchium were O. swartzii (Turn.) Warnst., O. speciosum (Brid.) Warnst. and O. rusciforme Warnst. These do not fit the present concept of Kindbergia. On the other hand, he included Hypnum stokesii, i.e. the type species of Kindbergia, in Eurhynchium. Thus, Warnstorf's (1906) concept of Oxyr­ rhynchium was totalIy, different from the concept of Kindbergia. Although it would be possible to save the name Oxyrrhynchium by lectotypification of Eurhynchium subg. Oxyrrhynchium with E. stokesii, this solution should be avoided because it C. M. MATTER I & R. OCHYRA: Two South American species of Brachytheciaceae 325 results in an unnecessary disturbance of the nomenclature. Kindbergia is already in use in recent floras and checklists of mosses, for instance by Brassard (1983, 1984) and Ireland et al. (1987) and it would be foolish to adopt a different name which would necessitate the introduction of many new combinations. Eurhynchium velutinoides Schimp. in B.S.G. is therefore proposed as the lectotype of Eurhynchium subg.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bryo's to Know Table
    BRYOS TO KNOW Common Name Claim to Fame MOSSES: Bryopsida: Buckiella undulata Snake Moss, Wavy-Leaf aka Plagiothecium undulatum Moss, Tongue-Moss, Wavy Cotton, Moss Claopodium crispifolium Rough moss Dicranum scoparium Broom Moss Dicranum tauricum Finger-licking-good-moss Eurhynchium oreganum Oregon Beaked-Moss aka Kindbergia oregana Eurhynchium praelongum Slender-Beaked Moss aka Kindbergia praelonga Hylocomium splendens Step Moss, Stair-Step Moss, Splendid Feather Moss Grimmia pulvinata Grey-cushioned Grimmia Hypnum circinale Coiled-Leaf Moss Leucolepis acanthoneuron Menzie’s Tree Moss, Umbrella Moss, Palm-Tree Moss Plagiomnium insigne Badge Moss, Coastal Leafy Moss Pseudotaxiphyllum elegans Small-Flat Moss Rhizomnium glabrescens Fan Moss Rhytidiadelphus loreus Lanky Moss, Loreus Goose Neck Moss Rhytidiadelphus squarrosum Springy Turf-Moss, Square Goose Neck Moss Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus Electrified Cat-Tail Moss, Goose Necked Moss Rhytidiopsus robusta Robust mountain moss Schistostega pennata Goblin’s Gold, Luminous Moss Polytrichopsida: Atrichum Atrichum Moss , Crane’s Bill Moss (for Atrichum selwynii) Pogonatum contortum Contorted Pogonatum Moss Polytrichum commune Common Hair Cap Moss Polytrichum piliferum Bristly Haircap Moss Andreaeopsida Andreaea nivalis Granite moss, Lantern moss, Snow Rock Moss Sphagnopsida: Sphagnum capillifolium Red Bog Moss, Small Red Peat Moss Sphagnum papillosum Fat Bog Moss, Papillose sphagnum Sphagnum squarrosum Shaggy Sphagnum, Spread- Leaved Peat Moss Takakiopsida: Takakia lepidoziooides Impossible
    [Show full text]
  • Fossil Mosses: What Do They Tell Us About Moss Evolution?
    Bry. Div. Evo. 043 (1): 072–097 ISSN 2381-9677 (print edition) DIVERSITY & https://www.mapress.com/j/bde BRYOPHYTEEVOLUTION Copyright © 2021 Magnolia Press Article ISSN 2381-9685 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/bde.43.1.7 Fossil mosses: What do they tell us about moss evolution? MicHAEL S. IGNATOV1,2 & ELENA V. MASLOVA3 1 Tsitsin Main Botanical Garden of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia 2 Faculty of Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia 3 Belgorod State University, Pobedy Square, 85, Belgorod, 308015 Russia �[email protected], https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1520-042X * author for correspondence: �[email protected], https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6096-6315 Abstract The moss fossil records from the Paleozoic age to the Eocene epoch are reviewed and their putative relationships to extant moss groups discussed. The incomplete preservation and lack of key characters that could define the position of an ancient moss in modern classification remain the problem. Carboniferous records are still impossible to refer to any of the modern moss taxa. Numerous Permian protosphagnalean mosses possess traits that are absent in any extant group and they are therefore treated here as an extinct lineage, whose descendants, if any remain, cannot be recognized among contemporary taxa. Non-protosphagnalean Permian mosses were also fairly diverse, representing morphotypes comparable with Dicranidae and acrocarpous Bryidae, although unequivocal representatives of these subclasses are known only since Cretaceous and Jurassic. Even though Sphagnales is one of two oldest lineages separated from the main trunk of moss phylogenetic tree, it appears in fossil state regularly only since Late Cretaceous, ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Life Magill’S Encyclopedia of Science
    MAGILLS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE PLANT LIFE MAGILLS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE PLANT LIFE Volume 4 Sustainable Forestry–Zygomycetes Indexes Editor Bryan D. Ness, Ph.D. Pacific Union College, Department of Biology Project Editor Christina J. Moose Salem Press, Inc. Pasadena, California Hackensack, New Jersey Editor in Chief: Dawn P. Dawson Managing Editor: Christina J. Moose Photograph Editor: Philip Bader Manuscript Editor: Elizabeth Ferry Slocum Production Editor: Joyce I. Buchea Assistant Editor: Andrea E. Miller Page Design and Graphics: James Hutson Research Supervisor: Jeffry Jensen Layout: William Zimmerman Acquisitions Editor: Mark Rehn Illustrator: Kimberly L. Dawson Kurnizki Copyright © 2003, by Salem Press, Inc. All rights in this book are reserved. No part of this work may be used or reproduced in any manner what- soever or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy,recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information address the publisher, Salem Press, Inc., P.O. Box 50062, Pasadena, California 91115. Some of the updated and revised essays in this work originally appeared in Magill’s Survey of Science: Life Science (1991), Magill’s Survey of Science: Life Science, Supplement (1998), Natural Resources (1998), Encyclopedia of Genetics (1999), Encyclopedia of Environmental Issues (2000), World Geography (2001), and Earth Science (2001). ∞ The paper used in these volumes conforms to the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, Z39.48-1992 (R1997). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Magill’s encyclopedia of science : plant life / edited by Bryan D.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of New Zealand Mosses
    FLORA OF NEW ZEALAND MOSSES BRACHYTHECIACEAE A.J. FIFE Fascicle 46 – JUNE 2020 © Landcare Research New Zealand Limited 2020. Unless indicated otherwise for specific items, this copyright work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence Attribution if redistributing to the public without adaptation: "Source: Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research" Attribution if making an adaptation or derivative work: "Sourced from Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research" See Image Information for copyright and licence details for images. CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION Fife, Allan J. (Allan James), 1951- Flora of New Zealand : mosses. Fascicle 46, Brachytheciaceae / Allan J. Fife. -- Lincoln, N.Z. : Manaaki Whenua Press, 2020. 1 online resource ISBN 978-0-947525-65-1 (pdf) ISBN 978-0-478-34747-0 (set) 1. Mosses -- New Zealand -- Identification. I. Title. II. Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd. UDC 582.345.16(931) DC 588.20993 DOI: 10.7931/w15y-gz43 This work should be cited as: Fife, A.J. 2020: Brachytheciaceae. In: Smissen, R.; Wilton, A.D. Flora of New Zealand – Mosses. Fascicle 46. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln. http://dx.doi.org/10.7931/w15y-gz43 Date submitted: 9 May 2019 ; Date accepted: 15 Aug 2019 Cover image: Eurhynchium asperipes, habit with capsule, moist. Drawn by Rebecca Wagstaff from A.J. Fife 6828, CHR 449024. Contents Introduction..............................................................................................................................................1 Typification...............................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Heathland Wind Farm Technical Appendix A8.1: Habitat Surveys
    HEATHLAND WIND FARM TECHNICAL APPENDIX A8.1: HABITAT SURVEYS JANAURY 2021 Prepared By: Harding Ecology on behalf of: Arcus Consultancy Services 7th Floor 144 West George Street Glasgow G2 2HG T +44 (0)141 221 9997 l E [email protected] w www.arcusconsulting.co.uk Registered in England & Wales No. 5644976 Habitat Survey Report Heathland Wind Farm TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................. 1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 2 1.1 Background .................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Site Description .............................................................................................. 2 2 METHODS .................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Desk Study...................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Field Survey .................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Survey Limitations .......................................................................................... 5 3 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Desk Study.....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Part 4 Appendices
    Part 4 Appendices HEARD ISLAND AND MCDONALD ISLANDS MARINE RESERVE 139 Appendix 1. Proclamation of Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve 140 MANAGEMENT PLAN HEARD ISLAND AND MCDONALD ISLANDS MARINE RESERVE 141 142 MANAGEMENT PLAN Appendix 2. Native Fauna of the HIMI Marine Reserve Listed Under the EPBC Act Scientific Name Common Name Birds recorded as breeding Aptenodytes patagonicus king penguin S Catharacta lonnbergi subantarctic skua S Daption capense cape petrel S Diomeda exulans wandering albatross V S M B J A Diomeda melanophrys black–browed albatross S M B A Eudyptes chrysocome southern rockhopper penguin S Eudyptes chrysolophus macaroni penguin S Larus dominicanus kelp gull S Macronectes giganteus southern giant petrel E S M B A Oceanites oceanicus Wilson’s storm petrel S M J Pachyptila crassirostris fulmar prion S Pachyptila desolata Antarctic prion S Pelecanoides georgicus South Georgian diving petrel S Pelecanoides urinatrix common diving petrel S Phalacrocorax atriceps (e) Heard Island cormorant V S Phoebetria palpebrata light mantled sooty albatross S M B A Pygoscelis papua gentoo penguin S Sterna vittata Antarctic tern V S Non–breeding birds Catharacta maccormicki south polar skua S M J Diomedea epomophora southern royal albatross V S M B A Fregetta grallaria white–bellied storm petrel S Fregetta tropica black–bellied storm petrel S Fulmarus glacialoides southern fulmar S Garrodia nereis grey–backed storm petrel S Halobaena caerulea blue petrel V S Macronectes halli northern giant petrel V S M B A Pachyptila belcheri
    [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]
  • Bibliography of Publications 1974 – 2019
    W. SZAFER INSTITUTE OF BOTANY POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Ryszard Ochyra BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PUBLICATIONS 1974 – 2019 KRAKÓW 2019 Ochyraea tatrensis Váňa Part I. Monographs, Books and Scientific Papers Part I. Monographs, Books and Scientific Papers 5 1974 001. Ochyra, R. (1974): Notatki florystyczne z południowo‑wschodniej części Kotliny Sandomierskiej [Floristic notes from southeastern part of Kotlina Sandomierska]. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 360 Prace Botaniczne 2: 161–173 [in Polish with English summary]. 002. Karczmarz, K., J. Mickiewicz & R. Ochyra (1974): Musci Europaei Orientalis Exsiccati. Fasciculus III, Nr 101–150. 12 pp. Privately published, Lublini. 1975 003. Karczmarz, K., J. Mickiewicz & R. Ochyra (1975): Musci Europaei Orientalis Exsiccati. Fasciculus IV, Nr 151–200. 13 pp. Privately published, Lublini. 004. Karczmarz, K., K. Jędrzejko & R. Ochyra (1975): Musci Europaei Orientalis Exs‑ iccati. Fasciculus V, Nr 201–250. 13 pp. Privately published, Lublini. 005. Karczmarz, K., H. Mamczarz & R. Ochyra (1975): Hepaticae Europae Orientalis Exsiccatae. Fasciculus III, Nr 61–90. 8 pp. Privately published, Lublini. 1976 006. Ochyra, R. (1976): Materiały do brioflory południowej Polski [Materials to the bry‑ oflora of southern Poland]. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 432 Prace Botaniczne 4: 107–125 [in Polish with English summary]. 007. Ochyra, R. (1976): Taxonomic position and geographical distribution of Isoptery‑ giopsis muelleriana (Schimp.) Iwats. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica 22: 129–135 + 1 map as insertion [with Polish summary]. 008. Karczmarz, K., A. Łuczycka & R. Ochyra (1976): Materiały do flory ramienic środkowej i południowej Polski. 2 [A contribution to the flora of Charophyta of central and southern Poland. 2]. Acta Hydrobiologica 18: 193–200 [in Polish with English summary].
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Sphagnum</I> Peat Mosses
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE doi:10.1111/evo.12547 Evolution of niche preference in Sphagnum peat mosses Matthew G. Johnson,1,2,3 Gustaf Granath,4,5,6 Teemu Tahvanainen, 7 Remy Pouliot,8 Hans K. Stenøien,9 Line Rochefort,8 Hakan˚ Rydin,4 and A. Jonathan Shaw1 1Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708 2Current Address: Chicago Botanic Garden, 1000 Lake Cook Road Glencoe, Illinois 60022 3E-mail: [email protected] 4Department of Plant Ecology and Evolution, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvagen¨ 18D, SE-752 36, Uppsala, Sweden 5School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 6Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden 7Department of Biology, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, 80101, Joensuu, Finland 8Department of Plant Sciences and Northern Research Center (CEN), Laval University Quebec, Canada 9Department of Natural History, Norwegian University of Science and Technology University Museum, Trondheim, Norway Received March 26, 2014 Accepted September 23, 2014 Peat mosses (Sphagnum)areecosystemengineers—speciesinborealpeatlandssimultaneouslycreateandinhabitnarrowhabitat preferences along two microhabitat gradients: an ionic gradient and a hydrological hummock–hollow gradient. In this article, we demonstrate the connections between microhabitat preference and phylogeny in Sphagnum.Usingadatasetof39speciesof Sphagnum,withan18-locusDNAalignmentandanecologicaldatasetencompassingthreelargepublishedstudies,wetested
    [Show full text]
  • Systematics and Ecology of the Moss Genus Scleropodium (Brachytheciaceae)
    Systematics and ecology of the moss genus Scleropodium (Brachytheciaceae) By Benjamin Elias Carter A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Integrative Biology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Brent D. Mishler, Chair Professor Bruce G. Baldwin Professor Chelsea D. Specht Spring 2012 Abstract Systematics and ecology of the moss genus Scleropodium (Brachytheciaceae) By Benjamin Elias Carter Doctor of Philosophy in Integrative Biology University of California, Berkeley Professor Brent D. Mishler, Chair Scleropodium is a genus of six species in the Brachytheciaceae. Although they are common in north temperate zones, they have not received monographic treatment in over a century. The aims of this study were to test species circumscriptions within the genus with molecular data, complete a thorough global taxonomic treatment of the genus, and to quantitatively investigate the ecological preferences of the species. A molecular phylogenetic study was conducted using 104 individuals spanning the range of morphological variation and the geographic extent of the genus. Maximum Parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetic analyses and a statistical parsimony network analysis of ITS and the chloroplast rps4, bsbA2 and trnG regions were performed. Although slight differences were found among analyses, there were six clear molecular groups. Five of these corresponded directly to the species Scleropodium californicum, S. cespitans, S. julaceum, S. obtusifolium and S. touretii. The sixth species, S. occidentale, is new to science and is described here. It is similar in ecology and morphology to S. obtusifolium, but has several diagnostic features in both molecular markers and morphological characters.
    [Show full text]
  • A Molecular Phylogeny of Hypnales (Bryophyta) Inferred from ITS2 Sequence-Structure Data Benjamin Merget, Matthias Wolf*
    Merget and Wolf BMC Research Notes 2010, 3:320 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1756-0500/3/320 SHORT REPORT Open Access A molecular phylogeny of Hypnales (Bryophyta) inferred from ITS2 sequence-structure data Benjamin Merget, Matthias Wolf* Abstract Background: Hypnales comprise over 50% of all pleurocarpous mosses. They provide a young radiation complicating phylogenetic analyses. To resolve the hypnalean phylogeny, it is necessary to use a phylogenetic marker providing highly variable features to resolve species on the one hand and conserved features enabling a backbone analysis on the other. Therefore we used highly variable internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) sequences and conserved secondary structures, as deposited with the ITS2 Database, simultaneously. Findings: We built an accurate and in parts robustly resolved large scale phylogeny for 1,634 currently available hypnalean ITS2 sequence-structure pairs. Conclusions: Profile Neighbor-Joining revealed a possible hypnalean backbone, indicating that most of the hypnalean taxa classified as different moss families are polyphyletic assemblages awaiting taxonomic changes. Background encompassing a total of 1,634 species in order to test Pleurocarpous mosses, which are mainly found in tropi- the hypothesis that the ITS2 sequence-structure can be cal forests, account for more than 50% of all moss spe- used to determine the phylogeny of Hypnales and to cies [1,2]. Brotherus in 1925 used morphological resolve especially its phylogenetic backbone. A rapid characters to partition the pleurocarpous into three radiation in the early history of pleurocarpous mosses orders. These were Leucodontales (= Isobryales), Hoo- has resulted in low molecular diversity generally, but keriales and Hypnobryales (= Hypnales) [3]. Later mole- particularly in the order Hypnales [5,7].
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Action Plan
    CORRIB DEVELOPMENT BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN 2014-2019 Front Cover Images: Sruwaddacon Bay Evening Lady’s Bedstraw at Glengad Green-veined White Butterfly near Leenamore Common Dolphin Vegetation survey at Glengad CORRIB DEVELOPMENT BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN 1 Leenamore Inlet CORRIB DEVELOPMENT 2 BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN LIST OF CONTENTS 2.4 DATABASE OF BIODIVERSITY 39 3 THE BIODIVERSITY A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4 ACTION PLAN 41 FOREWORd 5 3.1 ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES FOR CONSERVATION 41 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 3.1.1 HABITATS 41 1 INTRODUCTION 8 3.1.2 SPECIES 41 1.1 BIODIVERSITY 8 3.2 AIMS 41 1.1.1 WHAT is biodiversity? 8 3.3 OBJECTIVES AND acTIONS 42 1.1.2 WHY is biodiversity important? 8 3.4 MONITORING, EVALUATION 1.2 INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL CONTEXT 9 AND IMPROVEMENT 42 1.2.1 CONVENTION on BIODIVERSITY 9 3.4.1 MONITORING 42 1.2.2 NATIONAL and local implementation 9 3.4.2 EVALUATION and improvement 43 1.2.3 WHY A biodiversity action plan? 10 TABLE 5 SUMMARY of obJECTIVES and actions for THE conservation of habitats and species 43 3.4.3 Reporting, commUNICATING and 2 THE CORRIB DEVELOPMENT VERIFICATION 44 AND BIODIVERSITY 11 3.4.3.1 ACTIONS 44 2.1 AN OVERVIEW OF THE CORRIB 3.4.3.2 COMMUNICATION 44 DEVELOPMENT 11 3.5 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND FIG 1 LOCATION map 11 PARTNERSHIPS FOR BIODIVERSITY 44 FIG 2 Schematic CORRIB DEVELOPMENT 12 3.5.1 S TAKEHOLDER engagement and CONSULTATION 44 2.2 DESIGNATED CONSERVATION SITES AND THE CORRIB GaS DEVELOPMENT 13 3.5.2 PARTNERSHIPS for biodiversity 44 3.5.3 COMMUNITY staKEHOLDER engagement 45 2.2.1 DESIGNATED
    [Show full text]