List of the Mosses of North America North of Mexico

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This content downloaded from 150.131.192.151 on Sun, 05 Apr 2015 12:49:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Abstract. The checklist includes a listing of the genera and species of North American mosses thought to occur in the continental United States and Canada. The floras of Mexico and Greenland are not included. The list for Sphagnum is in an accompanying paper. Including Sphagnum, 1,320 species and 109 varieties are recognized in 312 genera and 72 families. Accompanying the list are a systematic arrangement of the genera, species, and varieties, and a list ofsynonyms and excluded species. Three nomenclatural changes are made: Limprichtia cossonii (Schimp.), comb. nov., Polytrichum papillatum (G. L. Sm.), comb. nov., and Schistidium heterophyllum (Kindb. in Mac. & Kindb.) McIntosh, comb. nov. The first comprehensive checklist of the mosses of North America north of Mexico was published by Grout (1940), with Andrews (1940) providing a list of Sphagnum species. In 1965, Crum, Steere, and Anderson produced their first checklist which was revised eight years later (Crum et al. 1973). The same three authors began a second revision of the list several years ago, but the effort was interrupted by pressures of other tasks. Shortly thereafter, Bill Steere regrettably withdrew from the project. Several years later Crum and Anderson resumed work on the list. William R. Buck's involvement dates back to his graduate student days at the University of Michigan.Through the years, especially recently, he has contributed enormously to all aspects of the checklist. The senior authors feel that his efforts fully justify their invitation to become a joint author. Thus, with the help of many bryologists throughout the world we present here the long overdue revision.The systematic arrangement of the genera and families, more or less, follows the sequence of Brotherus (1924)(1925). We have shifted several genera and we have made minor rearrangements of families. The current trend in bryology seems to be toward narrower generic and familial concepts, and we have more or less followed this trend. For those who disagree with our usage we have provided the authorities for names listed among the synonyms. The users of the checklist therefore can easily retrieve whatever names they wish.It is next to impossible to construct a checklist that is entirely updated and error free. It is also impossible to make one that will please anyone, even ourselves. Species are unequal in value, even in the same genus, and opinions concerning their limits vary enormously. Notions about generic lim-It is with respect and affection that we dedicate this checklist to our late friend and colleague, William C. St...

Patterns of bryophyte diversity in humid coastal and inland cedar–hemlock forests of British Columbia

“…Species nomenclature follows Anderson et al (1990) for mosses and Stotler and Crandall-Stotler (1977) for hepatics. Voucher specimens collected from each watershed were prepared and deposited at the University of Alberta Cryptogamic Herbarium (ALTA), Kamloops Forest Region Herbarium, and University of British Columbia Herbarium (UBC).…”

The first discovery on the sporophytes of a rheophytic moss: Bryocrumia vivicolor (Bryophyta, Hypnaceae)

“…Two years later, B. andersonii was reported from Yunnan, China for the first time outside eastern North America (Redfearn et al 1989). Later, Anderson et al (1990) synonymized B. andersonii with B. vivicolor after confirming Redfearn's Chinese specimens. Bryocrumia became a monotypic genus again.…”

Plant Diversity and Cover after Wildfire on Anthropogenically Disturbed and Undisturbed Sites in Subarctic Upland <i>Picea mariana</i> Forest

“…Nonvascular plant taxonomy follows Anderson et al (1990), Vitt et al (1988), andSchuster (1969 -82). The data were analyzed using values of plant cover, plant richness, and species diversity.…”