New Views on the Relationships among European Pleurocarpous Mosses

Stuttgarter Beitrage Zur Naturkunde, Serie A (Biologie)

Volumn 1999, Issue 589, 1999, Pages 1-15

  Hedenäs, Lars ^a  

^a SWEDISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041876461     PISSN: 03410145     EISSN: 21935513     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. AUGIER, J. (1966): Flore des bryophytes. – Encyclopédie Biologique 44: 1–702; Paris.
2. BREMER, B. & L. STRUWE (1992): Phylogeny of the Rubiaceae and the Loganiaceae: congru-ence or conflict between morphological and molecular data. – Amer. J. Bot. 79: 1171–1184; Lancaster.
3. BROTHERUS, V. F. (1924): Musci (Laubmoose). 1. Hälfte. – In: ENGLER, A., K. PRANTL (eds.): Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. – Pp. 1–478; Leipzig.
4. – (1925): Musci (Laubmoose). 2. Hälfte. – In: ENGLER, A., K. PRANTL (eds.): Die natürli-chen Pflanzenfamilien. – Pp. 1–542; Leipzig.
5. BUCK, W. R. (1980): A generic revision of the Entodontaceae. – J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 48: 71–159: Nichinan.
6. – (1988): Another view of familial delimitation in the Hookeriales. – J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 64: 29–36; Nichinan.
7. – (1991): The basis for familial classification of pleurocarpous mosses. – Adv. Bryol. 4: 169–185; Vaduz.
8. BUCK, W. R. & H. CRUM (1990): An evaluation of familial limits among the genera traditionally aligned with the Thuidiaceae and Leskeaceae. – Contr. Univ. Michigan Herb. 17: 55–69; Ann Arbor.
9. BUCK, W. R. & R. R. IRELAND (1985): A reclassification of the Plagiotheciaceae. – Nova Hed-wigia 41: 89–125; Braunschweig.
10. BUCK, W. R. & D. H. VITT (1986): Suggestions for a new familial classification of pleurocar-pous mosses. – Taxon 35: 21–60; Utrecht.
11. CROSBY, M. R. (1974): Toward a revised classification of the Hookeriaceae (Musci). – J. Hat-tori Bot. Lab. 38: 129–141; Nichinan.
12. CRUM, H. (1972): The geographic origins of the mosses of North America’s eastern deciduous forest. – J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 35: 269–298; Nichinan.
13. – (1991): A partial clarification of the Lembophyllaceae. – J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 69: 313–322, Nichinan.
14. ENROTH, J. (1994): On the evolution and circumscription of the Neckeraceae (Musci). – J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 76: 13–20; Nichinan.
15. FLEISCHER, M. (1900–1922): Die Musci der Flora von Buitenzorg. Band 1–4. – 1729 pp.; Lei-den.
16. FOREY, P. L., C. J. HUMPHRIES, I. J. KITCHING, R. W. SCOTLAND, D. J. SIEBERT & D. M. WIL-LIAMS (1992): Cladistics. A practical course in systematics. – XI + 191 pp.; Oxford.
17. FRAHM, J.-P. (1995): Laubmoose. – In: FREY, W., J.-P. FRAHM, E. FISCHER & W. LOBIN (eds.): Die Moos-und Farnpflanzen Europas. – Kleine Kryptogamenflora 4: 121–313; Stutt-gart.
18. FRAHM, J.-P. & W. FREY (1987): Mossflora. 2., überarbeitete Auflage. – 525 pp.; Stuttgart.
19. GROUT, A. J. (1908): Some relations between the habitats of mosses and their structure. – Bryologist 11: 97–100; Brooklyn.
20. HARVEY, P. H. & M. D. PAGEL (1991): The comparative method in evolutionary biology Ox-ford. – 248 pp.; Oxford.
21. HEDDERSON, T. A. & R. E. LONGTON (1996): Life history variation in mosses: water relations, size and phylogeny. – Oikos 77: 31–43; Lund.
22. HEDENÄS, L. (1987a): North European mosses with axillary rhizoids. – J. Bryol. 14: 429–439; Oxford.
23. – (1987b): On the taxonomic position of Tomentypnum Loeske. – J. Bryol. 14: 729–736; Oxford.
24. – (1989): Some neglected character distribution patterns among the pleurocarpous mos-ses. – Bryologist 92: 157–163; College Station.
25. – (1994): The basal pleurocarpous diplolepidous mosses – a cladistic approach. – Bryologist 97: 225–243; Omaha.
26. – (1995): Higher taxonomic level relationships among diplolepidous pleurocarpous mosses – a cladistic overview. – J. Bryol. 18: 723–781; Leeds.
27. – (1997a): A partial generic revision of Campylium (Musci). – Bryologist 100: 65–88; Fairfax.
28. – [1997b (“1996”)]: A cladistic evaluation of relationships between the Hookeriales, the Sematophyllaceae and some other taxa. – Lindbergia 21: 49–82; Odense.
29. – [1997c (“1996”)]: A cladistic overview of the “Hookeriales”. – Lindbergia 21: 107–143; Odense.
30. – [1998a (“1997”)]: An evaluation of phylogenetic relationships among the Thuidiaceae, the Amblystegiaceae, and the temperate members of the Hypnaceae. – Lindbergia 22: 101–133; Odense.
31. – (1998b): Cladistic studies on pleurocarpous mosses: Research needs, and use of results. – In: DUCKETT, J. G., N. W. ASHTON & J. W. BATES (eds.): Bryology for the twenty first century. –Pp. 125–141; Leeds (Maney & Son and the Bristh Bryological Society).
32. HEDENÄS, L. & A. KOOIJMAN (1996): Phylogeny and habitat adaptations within a monophy-letic group of wetland moss genera (Amblystegiaceae). – Pl. Syst. Evol. 199: 33–52; Wien.
33. JENSEN, C. (1939): Skandinaviens bladmossflora. – 535 pp.; Copenhagen.
34. LIMPRICHT, K. G. (1890–1895): Die Laubmoose Deutschlands, Oesterreichs und der Schweiz. II. Abtheilung. – 853 pp.; Leipzig.
35. – (1895–1904): Die Laubmoose Deutschlands, Oesterreichs und der Schweiz. III. Ab-theilung. – 864 + 79 pp.; Leipzig.
36. MASCHKE, J. (1976): Taxonomische Revision der Laubmoosgattung Myurium (Pterobrya-ceae). – Bryophyt. Biblioth. 6: 1–218; Vaduz.
37. MILLER, H. A. (1971): An overview of the Hookeriales. – Phytologia 21: 243–252; Plainfield.
38. MISHLER, B. D. (1986): A Hennigian approach to bryophyte phylogeny. – J. Bryol. 14: 71–81; Oxford.
39. NISHIMURA, N., M. HIGUCHI, T. SEKI & H. ANDO (1984): Delimitation and subdivision of the moss family Hypnaceae. – J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 55: 227–234; Nichinan.
40. NYHOLM, E. (1960): Illustrated moss flora of Fennoscandia, II. Musci. Fasc. 4. – Pp. 287–408; Lund.
41. – (1965): Illustrated moss flora of Fennoscandia, II. Musci. Fasc. 5. – Pp. 407–647; Lund.
42. OCHYRA, R. (1989): Animadversions on the moss genus Cratoneuron (Sull.) Spruce. – J. Hat-tori Bot. Lab. 67: 203–242; Nichinan.
43. PROCTOR, M. C. F. (1984): 2. Structure and ecological adaptation. – In: DYER, A. F. & J. G. DUCKETT (eds.): The experimental biology of bryophytes. – Pp. 9–37; London.
44. ROBINSON, H. (1986): On the relationships of the Hookeriaceae. – Bryol. Times 35: 2–3; Ut-recht.
45. ROHRER, J. R. (1985a): A phenetic and phylogenetic analysis of the Hylocomiaceae and Rhyt-idiaceae. – J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 59: 185–240; Nichinan.
46. – (1985b): A generic revision of the Hylocomiaceae. – J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 59: 241–278; Nichinan.
47. SHAW, J. & H. ROBINSON (1984): On the development, evolution and function of peristomes in mosses. – J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 57: 319–335; Nichinan.
48. SMITH, A. J. E. (1978): The moss flora of Britain and Ireland. – 706 pp.; Cambridge.
49. THIERS, B. M. (1988): Morphological adaptations of the Jungermanniales (Hepaticae) to the tropical rain forest habitat. – J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 64: 5–14; Nichinan.
50. VITT, D. H. (1981): Adaptive modes of the moss sporophyte. – Bryologist 84: 166–186; Car-bondale.
51. WANNTORP, H.-E. (1983): Historical constraints in adaptation theory: traits and non-traits. – Oikos. 41: 157–160; Lund.
52. WHITTEMORE, A. & B. ALLEN (1989): The systematic position of Adelothecium Mitt. and the familial classification of the Hookeriales (Musci). – Bryologist 92: 261–272; College Station.