Chapter 2-7 Bryopsida
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
A Revision of Schoenobryum (Cryphaeaceae, Bryopsida) in Africa1
Revision of Schoenobryum 147 Tropical Bryology 24: 147-159, 2003 A revision of Schoenobryum (Cryphaeaceae, Bryopsida) in Africa1 Brian J. O’Shea 141 Fawnbrake Avenue, London SE24 0BG, U.K. Abstract. The nine species and two varieties of Schoenobryum reported for Africa were investigated, and no characters were found that uniquely identified any of the taxa to be other than the pantropical Schoenobryum concavifolium. The following nine names become new synonyms of S. concavifolium: Cryphaea madagassa, C. subintegra, Acrocryphaea robusta, A. latifolia, A. subrobusta, A. tisserantii, A. latifolia var. microspora, A. plicatula and A. subintegra var. idanreense; a lectotype is selected for Acrocryphaea latifolia var. microspora P.de la Varde. INTRODUCTION as the majority have not been examined since the type description, and many have never been A recent checklist of Sub-Saharan Africa illustrated. (O’Shea, 1999) included nine species and two varieties of Schoenobryum, most of quite limited The purpose of this paper is to provide an distribution. Recent collecting in both Malawi overview of the genus worldwide, and to review (O’Shea et al., 2001) and Uganda (Wigginton et the taxonomic position of the African taxa. al., 2001) has shown the genus to be not uncommon, although there was only one CRYPHAEACEAE SCHIMP. 1856. previously published collection from the two countries (O’Shea, 1993). Apart from one Cryphaeaceae Schimp., Coroll. Bryol. Eur. 97. African taxon occurring in nine countries, the 1856 [‘1855’]. Type: Cryphaea D.Mohr in other 10 occurred in an average of 1.7 countries. F.Weber This particular profile is typical of unrevised genera in Africa, and indicative of a possible A brief review of the circumscription and need for revision (O’Shea, 1997), particularly systematics of the family, and the distinctions from related families (e.g. -
Antarctic Bryophyte Research—Current State and Future Directions
Bry. Div. Evo. 043 (1): 221–233 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.43.1.16 Antarctic bryophyte research—current state and future directions PAULO E.A.S. CÂMARA1, MicHELine CARVALHO-SILVA1 & MicHAEL STecH2,3 1Departamento de Botânica, Universidade de Brasília, Brazil UnB; �[email protected]; http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3944-996X �[email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2389-3804 2Naturalis Biodiversity Center, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands; 3Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands �[email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9804-0120 Abstract Botany is one of the oldest sciences done south of parallel 60 °S, although few professional botanists have dedicated themselves to investigating the Antarctic bryoflora. After the publications of liverwort and moss floras in 2000 and 2008, respectively, new species were described. Currently, the Antarctic bryoflora comprises 28 liverwort and 116 moss species. Furthermore, Antarctic bryology has entered a new phase characterized by the use of molecular tools, in particular DNA sequencing. Although the molecular studies of Antarctic bryophytes have focused exclusively on mosses, molecular data (fingerprinting data and/or DNA sequences) have already been published for 36 % of the Antarctic moss species. In this paper we review the current state of Antarctic bryological research, focusing on molecular studies and conservation, and discuss future questions of Antarctic bryology in the light of global challenges. Keywords: Antarctic flora, conservation, future challenges, molecular phylogenetics, phylogeography Introduction The Antarctic is the most pristine, but also most extreme region on Earth in terms of environmental conditions. -
Coptis Trifolia Conservation Assessment
CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT for Coptis trifolia (L.) Salisb. Originally issued as Management Recommendations December 1998 Marty Stein Reconfigured-January 2005 Tracy L. Fuentes USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT FOR COPTIS TRIFOLIA Table of Contents Page List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 2 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 2 Summary........................................................................................................................................ 4 I. NATURAL HISTORY............................................................................................................. 6 A. Taxonomy and Nomenclature.......................................................................................... 6 B. Species Description ........................................................................................................... 6 1. Morphology ................................................................................................................... 6 2. Reproductive Biology.................................................................................................... 7 3. Ecological Roles ............................................................................................................. 7 C. Range and Sites -
Flora.Sa.Gov.Au/Jabg
JOURNAL of the ADELAIDE BOTANIC GARDENS AN OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL FOR AUSTRALIAN SYSTEMATIC BOTANY flora.sa.gov.au/jabg Published by the STATE HERBARIUM OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA on behalf of the BOARD OF THE BOTANIC GARDENS AND STATE HERBARIUM © Board of the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium, Adelaide, South Australia © Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Government of South Australia All rights reserved State Herbarium of South Australia PO Box 2732 Kent Town SA 5071 Australia J. Adelaide Bot. Gard. 17: 107-118 (1996) NEW AND INTERESTING SPECIES OF THE FANHLY BRYACEAE (BRYOPSIDA) FROM AUSTRALIA J.R. Spence* & H.P. Ramsay** *National Park Service, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1507 Page, AZ 86040, U.S.A. **National Herbarium of New South Wales, Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000 Australia. Abstract The identity of five Australian species of &yum, listed by Catcheside (1980) as Bryum species AE, has been determined and their taxonomy is discussed. B. species 'A'is B. sullivanii C. Muell., B. species '13'is Rosulabryum subtomentosum (Hampe)Spence, B. species 'C', a new species,is named as B. eremaeum Catcheside ex Spence & Ramsay, B. species 'D', also a new species, is named as B. sabulosum Catcheside ex Spence & Ramsay while B. species `E' belongs to the widespread taxon B. dichotomum Hedw. Introduction This paper is published as a memorial to David Catcheside who first discovered the new species and kindly suggested names to us for them prior to his death in June 1994, which predated compilation. The genus Thyum Hedw. (Bryaceae) was revised for Australia and its offshore territories by Ochi (1970) who listed 26 species. -
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 -
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. -
Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting -
Bryophytes: Indicators and Monitoring Agents of Pollution
NeBIO (2010) Vol. 1(1) Govindapyari et al . 35-41 GENERAL ARTICLE Bryophytes: indicators and monitoring agents of pollution H. Govindapyari, M. Leleeka, M. Nivedita and P. L. Uniyal Department of Botany, University of Delhi, Delhi – 110 007 Author for correspondence: [email protected], [email protected] Received: 17 September 2009; Revised and Accepted: 2 January 2010 ABSTRACT Bryophyte proves to be a potential bio-indicator of air pollution. The habitat diversity, structural simplicity, totipotency, rapid rate of multiplication and high metal accumulation capacity make bryophytes an ideal organism for pollution studies. The decline and absence of bryophyte populations especially epiphytes is a phenomenon primarily induced by air pollution caused by gaseous and particulate pollutants. Bryophytes are reliable indicators and monitors of air pollution as they are easy to handle and show a vast range of specific sensitivity and visible symptoms to pollutants greatly exceeding that of higher plants. KEY WORDS: Bryophyte, bio-indicator, air pollution, pollutants. Bryophytes are green land plants which lack a • which have the capacity to absorb and retain vascular system and are simple both morpho- pollutants in quantities much higher than those logically and anatomically. The growth potential in absorbed by other plant groups growing in the bryophytes is not as highly polarized as vascular same habitat. These plants trap and prevent plants. Bryophytes grow in a variety of habitats recycling of such pollutants in the ecosystem especially in moist places on soil, rocks, trunks and for different periods of time. Analysis of such branches of trees and fallen log. They obtain plants gives a fair idea about the degree of nutrients directly from substances dissolved in metal pollution. -
Plant Life MagillS 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. -
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 -
Volume 4, Chapter 2-4: Streams: Structural Modifications
Glime, J. M. 2020. Streams: Structural Modifications – Rhizoids, Sporophytes, and Plasticity. Chapt. 2-4. In: Glime, J. M. 2-4-1 Bryophyte Ecology. Volume 1. Habitat and Role. Ebook sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. Last updated 21 July 2020 and available at <http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/bryophyte-ecology/>. CHAPTER 2-4 STREAMS: STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS – RHIZOIDS, SPOROPHYTES, AND PLASTICITY TABLE OF CONTENTS Rhizoids and Attachment .................................................................................................................................... 2-4-2 Effects of Submersion .................................................................................................................................. 2-4-2 Effects of Flow on Rhizoid Production ........................................................................................................ 2-4-4 Finding and Recognizing the Substrate ........................................................................................................ 2-4-6 Growing the Right Direction ........................................................................................................................ 2-4-8 Rate of Attachment ...................................................................................................................................... 2-4-8 Reductions and Other Modifications .................................................................................................................. -
An Annotated Checklist of Egyptian Mosses Wagieh El-Saadawi1, Hanaa M
1 Taeckholmia 35: 1-23 (2015) An annotated checklist of Egyptian mosses Wagieh El-Saadawi1, Hanaa M. Shabbara2, Manal Ibrahim Khalil3 and Mai Ahmed Taha4* 1-4Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], 3manalibrahim2000@ yahoo.com, [email protected] *Corresponding author. Wagieh El-Saadawi, Hanaa M. Shabbara, Manal Ibrahim Khalil and Mai Ahmed Taha, 2015. An annotated checklist of Egyptian mosses. Taeckholmia 35: 1-23. The presented list of Egyptian mosses includes 181 taxa in 56 genera, 17 families and 10 orders. Synonyms reported only from Egypt are given in a separate list. The distribution of the 181 mosses in the 11, hitherto, surveyed phytogeographic territories of Egypt shows that S, Mm, Cai and Di are the richest territories regarding the number of recorded taxa. Pottiaceae, Bryaceae and Funariaceae dominate the flora. Pohlia lescuriana (Sull.) Ochi is a new record to Egypt. Other relevant annotations are also given. Key words: Checklist, Egypt, Mosses, Pohlia lescuriana. Introduction The increasing interest in the taxonomy of the bryophytes, especially aimed at biodiversity conservation has stimulated the elaboration of updated and corrected checklists (Cortini 2001). During the last five decades six checklists of Egyptian mosses had been published by: Imam & Ghabbour (1972); EL-Saadawi and Abou EL-Kheir (1973); El-Saadawi & Badawi (1977); El-Saadawi et al. (1999); El-Saadawi et al. (2003) and Ros et al. (2013). Naturally the number of recorded mosses increased with time and the last list included 166 taxa. ______________________ Received 25 July, Accepted 31 August 2015 2 Wagieh El-Saadawi et al.