Moss diversity: A molecular phylogenetic analysis of genera

Abstract

In this study we present phylogenetic and molecular phylogenetic diversity analyses of moss taxa from a total of 655 genera of mosses. Three loci were sampled: chloroplast ribosomal small protein 4, the intronic region of the mitochondrial NADH dehydogenase subunit 5, and partial sequences of the nuclear 26S ribosomal RNA. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian phylogenetic analyses were performed on individual loci and on multilocus data sets. A measure of phylogenetic diversity was calculated and constrasted among major lineages of mosses. We reveal many instances of incongruence among genomic partitions, but, overall, our analyses describe relationships largely congruent with previous studies of the major groups of mosses. Moreover, our greater sampling highlights the possible non-monophyly of many taxonomic families, particularly in the haplolepideous and pleurocarpous mosses. Comparisons of taxic and phylogenetic diversity among genera indicate that the Dicranidae (haplolepideous taxa) include about 15% of moss genera, but nearly 30% of the phylogenetic diversity. By contrast, the Hypnanae (hypnalian pleurocarps) contain about 45% of moss genera, but a lower percentage of phylogenetic diversity. Agreement between numbers of genera and phylogenetic diversity within other moss clades are remarkably consistent.

Testing hypotheses on suprageneric relationships and morphological evolution in the Leucobryaceae (Bryophyta)

“…In line with earlier phylogenetic studies (Cox et al 2010;Fedosov et al 2015Fedosov et al , 2016Hedderson et al 2004;La Farge et al 2000, 2002Stech 2004;Tsubota et al 2003Tsubota et al , 2004, the analyses of the present dataset resolved three well-supported lineages within the Leucobryaceae: the dicranoid Campylopus clade, the dicranoid Dicranodontium clade and the leucobryoid clade. The latter is characterized by the leucobryoid costa as synapomorphic character (Fig.…”

“…Bonfim Santos and Stech 2017) were not closely related to those in the Leucobryaceae, as proposed by Fleischer (1904), was confirmed by molecular data (e.g., Bonfim Santos and Stech 2017;Cox et al 2010;Fisher et al 2007;La Farge et al 2000). In contrast, molecular phylogenetic evidence suggested that a number of the Dicranaceae genera belong to the Leucobryaceae (Hedderson et al 2004;La Farge et al 2000, 2002Stech 1999Stech , 2004Tsubota et al 2003Tsubota et al , 2004.…”

“…The classification in Frey and Stech (2009) differed from Goffinet and Buck (2004) and Goffinet et al (2009) by placing Microcampylopus in the Dicranellaceae, adding Holomi triopsis, Mitrobryum, Sphaerothecium and Steyermarkiella (Dicranaceae in Goffinet et al 2009) to the Leucobryaceae, and incorporating nomenclatural changes at genus level, synonymizing Bryohumbertia with Campylopus (Stech 2004) and mistakenly adopting the use of Atractylocar pus for the Campylopodiella species and of Metzleria for the Atractylocarpus species (a misinterpretation of the nomenclatural proposal by Frahm and Isoviita 1988). The placement of Microcampylopus in the Dicranellaceae and of Holomitriopsis in the Leucobryaceae was supported by molecular data (Bonfim Santos and Stech 2017;Cox et al 2010;Stech 2004;Stech et al 2012). Mitrobryum, Sphaer othecium and Steyermarkiella have not yet been included in molecular phylogenetic studies.…”

“…Cox et al (2010) covered 10 out of 14 genera of the Leucobryaceae sensu Frey and Stech (2009) Stech et al (2012). However, relationships between the major lineages within the Leucobryaceae were contradictory between these and other molecular studies, and the taxon sampling was too limited to infer generic circumscriptions.…”

Is the sword moss (Bryoxiphium) a preglacial Tertiary relict?

“…Drummondia sinensis (accession numbers, FJ883993, FJ572610, FJ572456), Trichostomum tenuirostre (FJ884001, FJ572590, FJ572457), and Orthodicranum montanum (FJ572644, FJ883997, FJ572644, FJ572464) were used as outgroups based on large-scale phylogenetic analyses of mosses (Cox et al, 2010).…”