IAB blog: October 2009

Friday, October 30, 2009

This weekend do NOT increase your level of activity

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mbc/lowres/mbcn842l.jpg

BRYONET: Illustrated guide to California Mosses

From: "Shevock, James" <JShevock@calacademy.org>
To: "bryonet-l@mtu.edu" <bryonet-l@mtu.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:30:15 -0700
Subject: New bryophyte book available

Bryonetters:

As a public service announcement, I'd like to inform you that the just
published work titled: 'CALIFORNIA MOSSES' by Bill and Nancy Malcolm,
Jim Shevock, and Dan Norris is immediately available for the price of $
68 USD. California mosses is a 430 page hardback book containing 300
color plates and approx. 2,200 color images. Every genus of moss
occurring in California receives a color plate. A more detailed
announcement is attached, but in the event you are not able to open it,
you can go directly to the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
website at www.cnps.org<http://www.cnps.org> and access the information
there and see the book cover image. Click on the on-line store icon,
then books, then new titles. You will need to create an account with
shipping address (easy) and order. Credit cards accepted.

For those who have yet to obtain a copy of the second edition of the
Malcolm and Malcolm 'MOSSES AND OTHER BRYOPHYTES: AN ILLUSTRATED
GLOSSARY' is also available from the California Native Plant Society for
the same price of $68 USD. Both books are on the CNPS on-line store site
[cnps.org].

-jim-

Jim Shevock, Research Associate & Fellow
California Academy of Sciences, Botany
55 Music Concourse Dr., Golden Gate Park
San Francisco, California 94118 USA

jshevock@calacademy.org

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

BRYONET: bryonet slowdown

BRYONET

Hi Bryonetters,
I am leaving town tomorrow, so I will be a bit slower in posting your
messages while I am gone. I will have email access, but I will probably
only check it once a day.
Janice
--
*****************************************
Dr. Janice Glime, Professor Emerita
Past-President of IAB; Manager of Bryonet
(Michigan Technological University)
219 Hubbell St.
Houghton, MI 49931 USA
email: jmglime@mtu.edu
home: 906-482-1610
fax: 906-487-3167
*****************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryonet is a service of the International Association of Bryologists (IAB)
and is administered by Janice Glime <jmglime@mtu.edu>
through Michigan Technological University
IAB Officers:
President Jeff Duckett <j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk>
Secretary-Treasurer Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
First VP: Masanobu Higuchi, Second VP: Jiri Vana
To join IAB ($11 per year), contact Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
IAB website: http://www.bryology.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BRYONET: (no subject)

BRYONET

From: Rod Seppelt <Rod.Seppelt@aad.gov.au>
To: "bryonet-l@mtu.edu" <bryonet-l@mtu.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:18:30 +1100
Subject: RE: BRYONET: Ventral surface of a leaf [SEC=Unclassified]

Well, I am moved to reiterate my original point (along with David
Wagner) - ad = adjacent to and thus it matters not whether the plant is
erect, horizontal, or hangs down vertically (or obliquely). There is
only ever one side adjacent to the axis (i.e., adaxial). I also agree
that the situation is different in liverworts and mosses.
And, I hasten to add, I have become utterly confused by the various
definitions and reasons given for upper and lower, dorsal and ventral,
adaxial and abaxial, antical and postical, etc.

Prof Rod Seppelt
Principal Research Scientist
Australian Antarctic Division
203 Channel Higway
Kingston, Tasmania, 7050
Australia
Ph +61 (0)3 6232 3438

___________________________________________________________________________

Australian Antarctic Division - Commonwealth of Australia
IMPORTANT: This transmission is intended for the addressee only. If you
are not the
intended recipient, you are notified that use or dissemination of this
communication is
strictly prohibited by Commonwealth law. If you have received this
transmission in error,
please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephoning +61 3
6232 3209 and
DELETE the message.
Visit our web site at http://www.antarctica.gov.au/
___________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryonet is a service of the International Association of Bryologists (IAB)
and is administered by Janice Glime <jmglime@mtu.edu>
through Michigan Technological University
IAB Officers:
President Jeff Duckett <j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk>
Secretary-Treasurer Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
First VP: Masanobu Higuchi, Second VP: Jiri Vana
To join IAB ($11 per year), contact Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
IAB website: http://www.bryology.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW OFFICERS & COMMITTEES FOR IAB

Officers


President: Jeff Duckett (2009-2013) UK	1st VP: Masa Higuchi (2007-2011) Japan Secretary-Treasurer: Matt Von Konratt (2009-2013) USA & New Zealand	2nd VP: Jiri Váña (2009-2013) Czech Republic

---

Council


Min Chuah-Petiot (2007-2011) Malaysia	Efrain De Luna (2007-2011) Mexico	Zhang Li (2007-2011) China	Emma Pharo (2007-2011) Australia

Rosa Ros (2007-2011) Spain	Dietmar Quandt (2009-2013) Germany	Nadya Konstantinova (2009-2013) Russia

Claudine Ah-Peng (2009-2013) South Africa	Nancy Slack (2009-2013) USA	Janice Glime (2009-2013) USA as past president

---

EDITORS FOR BRYOLOGICAL TIMES


DorothyBelle Poli (USA)	Geert Raeymaekers (Belgium)

---
COMMITTEES

1. Richard Spruce Award (2009): VP#1
+ 2 appointments

2. Hattori Award (2009): VP#2 + 3
appointments (Best paper or series of papers published by a member of IAB within
the previous two years in a journal or book; $400 CDN)

3. Hedwig Award (2011): President
prior to IBC Congress + 3 appointments (Award to person who has made outstanding
contributions to bryology)

4. Stanley Greene Award (2009):
Secretary + 2 appointments (for proposal for research in Bryology)

5. Conservation Committee (continuing
appointment; reps from many countries)

Tomas Hallingback (SWEDEN) – before
08; CHAIR Allan Fife (NEW ZEALAND) – before 08 Ariel Bergamini (SWITZERLAND) -
09 Benito C Tan (SINGAPORE) – before 08 Cao Tong (CHINA) - 08 Cecília Sérgio
(PORTUGAL) – before 08 D. K. Singh (INDIA) - 08 David Meagher (AUSTRALIA) –
before 08 Denise Pinheiro da Costa (BRAZIL) – before 08 Geert Raeymaekers (BELGIUM)
– before 08 Jaime Aguirre Ceballos (COLOMBIA) – before 08 Jirí Váňa (CZECH
REPUBLIC) – before 08 Judy Harpel (USA) - 09 Kimmo Syrjänen (FINLAND) – before
08 Lars Soderstrom (NORWAY) – before 08 Margaret Ramsay (UNITED KINGDOM) –
before 08 Matt von Konrat (USA/NEW ZEALAND) - 08 Min Chuah-Petiot (MALAYSIA) –
before 08 Nadeyda Konstantinova (RUSSIAN FEDERATION) – before 08 Noris Salazar
Allen (REPUBLIC OF PANAMA) – before 08 René Belland (CANADA) – before 08 Ron
Porley (UNITED KINGDOM) – before 08 Uwe Drehwald (GERMANY) – before 08 Yelitza
León Vargas (VENEZUELA) – before 08 Zen Iwatsuki (JAPAN) – before 08

6. Membership Committee (2007-2010).
Rosa M. Ross (chair)

7. Riclef Grolle Award Committee
(2009): 3 appointments (for Excellence in Bryodiversity Research )

8. Judge of elections (2007, 2009 –
presidential appointment)

BRYONET: [BRYONET] Request for Calyptrochaeta (=Eriopus)

BRYONET

Dear all,

I am a PhD student at Duke University under Professor Shaw's supervision.
My thesis project focuses on the genus *Calyptrochaeta* Desv., formerly
known as *Eriopus* (Brid.) Brid. (nom. illeg.)
I am preparing a monograph on this genus and I need recent (if possible up
to 10 years old) *Calyptrochaeta* collections that I could sample for
DNA (I have a fair number of herbarium loans but most specimens are
rather old).
Please, let me know if you would be willing to provide duplicates and/or
lend or exchange specimens. We'll be paying for shipment.
Contact me at calyptrochaeta@gmail.com <pokorny@duke.edu>.

I look forward to hearing from you (and returning the favour some time).
Thank you very much for any assistance you can provide.

Best wishes,

Lisa Pokorny
http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/Biology/grad/pokorny

P.S. Please, abstain from sending materials of *C. apiculata* and *C.
asplenioides*. I have plenty, thank you.

__________________________________________________

Please forgive the loss of non-English characters below. We will be
using better software soon. Janice

Queridos todos,

Soy una estudiante de doctorado en la universidad de Duke bajo la tutela del
profesor Shaw. Mi tesis se centra en el genero *Calyptrochaeta* Desv.,
anteriormente llamado *Eriopus* (Brid.) Brid (nom. illeg.)
Estoy preparando una monografia de este genero y necesito materiales
recientes (no m=E1s de 10 a=F1os de antig=FCedad si es posible) de *Calyptr=
ochaeta
* que puedan ser muestreadas para DNA (tengo una cantidad m=E1s que
razonable
de pliegos de herbario en pr=E9stamo pero la mayoria de los especimenes son
demasiado viejos).
Por favor, h=E1gannos saber si estan dispuestos a proveernos duplicados y/o=
a
prestarnos o a intercambiar materiales. Correremos con los gastos de env=ED=
o.
Pueden ponerse en contacto conmigo en
calyptrochaeta@gmail.com<pokorny@duke.edu>.

Espero noticias suyas (quiz=E1s pueda devolver el favor en un futuro cercan=
o).
Les agradezco la ayuda que puedan proporcionarme.

Mis mejores deseos,
Lisa Pokorny
http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/Biology/grad/pokorny

P.D. Por favor, abst=E9nganse de enviar *C. apiculata* y *C. asplenioides*.
Tengo m=E1s que suficiente, gracias.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryonet is a service of the International Association of Bryologists (IAB)
and is administered by Janice Glime <jmglime@mtu.edu>
through Michigan Technological University
IAB Officers:
President Jeff Duckett <j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk>
Secretary-Treasurer Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
First VP: Masanobu Higuchi, Second VP: Jiri Vana
To join IAB ($11 per year), contact Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
IAB website: http://www.bryology.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: BRYONET: Ventral surface of a leaf

BRYONET

Dear Bryologists,

The galaxy of eminent bryologists is deliberating largely for the
awaited explanation from the end of Des Callaghan. As he made queries
that why the upper surface of a leaf is termed the ventral side, yet
normally (e.g. a liverwort thallus) the 'ventral' side is the lower surface?

Of course the term ventral sense in the way of Des Callaghan, if
considered differentially for liverworts and mosses.

But in my opinion it applies well for the sense of it is termed and as
long as in practices. The upper and lower surface does not mean to
dissent organisms or part of it for consideration any of the surfaces
(ventral or dorsal).

It is only the substratum (suport) on which organisms or parts of it
withstand, that determines the surface orientation. The substratum (soil
or anything else) supporting growth of thalloid liverworts determines
its orientation of ventral or dorsal side. The surface facing towards
supporting substratum would always be ventral and opposite of it dorsal
one either in liverworts or mosses.

Similarly, in mosses, during growth and development the leaves are
attached to axis, therefore the surface closest to axis will be ventral,
however, the far surface as dorsal one.

As for as adaxial and abaxial terms are concerned, I am of the opinion
of David H. Wagner. As I mean the adaxial term seems to be combination
of two words (ad=adhering; axial=axis) and abaxial (ab=away; axial=axis).

Therefore, in the organisms of erect habit the adaxial and abaxial terms
have clear sense, but in prostrate habit organisms these terms does not
mean and explicate exactly. Therefore, I would be suggesting that these
terms shall be restraint to the plants of erect habit, however term
ventral and dorsal side shall be used to all the plants of prostrate habit.

I hope this little advice from my end would help Des Callaghan to better
understand the ventral and dorsal side in organisms of erect and
prostrate habit.

Sincerely

Dr. Ajit Pratap Singh
Scientist-C
Biodiversity and Conservation Biology Division
National Botanical Research Institute
2-Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow-U.P.
Pin-226 001-India
Phone No.:+91-522-2297832-33(O)
Cell Phone:+91-9335736749;Fax No.:+91-522-2205836-39
Email:ajitpsingh2000@gmail.com;ajitpsingh2000@yahoo.com

Monday, October 26, 2009

Re: BRYONET: ventral surface of leaf-Pleurozia

BRYONET

Pleurozia has an apical cell with two cutting faces, only lateral
merophytes
contribute to the stem and no trace of ventral merophytes. In this case, I
would say it would be a vain effort of describing which is ventral and
which
is dorsal. You can see this in Pleurozia paradoxa.

It is quite natural for us to think about which side is ventral or dorsal
when the leaves are not in symmetry in this genus, but the organization of
Pleurozia is entirely different from those of the rest leafy liverworts
which have one ventral cutting face and two corresponding lateral cutting
faces and all these three merophytes are of in equal size in their early
development. These leafy liverworts (with three cutting faces) do have a
true ventral/dorsal side to me, regardless of whether underleaves are
present or absent.

Please correct me if I am very wrong!

Best wishes,
Xiaolan He
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryonet is a service of the International Association of Bryologists (IAB)
and is administered by Janice Glime <jmglime@mtu.edu>
through Michigan Technological University
IAB Officers:
President Jeff Duckett <j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk>
Secretary-Treasurer Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
First VP: Masanobu Higuchi, Second VP: Jiri Vana
To join IAB ($11 per year), contact Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
IAB website: http://www.bryology.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BRYONET: Handbook of Liverworts

BRYONET

The Institut d'Estudis Catalans has just published a volume of interest
to bryologists.

HANDBOOK OF LIVERWORTS AND HORNWORTS OF THE IBERIAN PENINSULA AND THE
BALEARIC ISLANDS

Illustrated keys to genera and species

Creu CASAS, Montserrat BRUGUÉS, Rosa M. CROS, Cecília SÉRGIO & Marta INFANTE

Barcelona, 2009. ISBN 84-92583-55-3. 177 p. Hardcover

PRICE: 40 €.

Sociedad Española de Briología (SEB) members: 20 €.

This volume is concerned with liverworts and hornworts of the Iberian
Peninsula and the Balearic Islands. Biogeographically it covers the
Mediterranean and Eurosiberian regions. This handbook comprises
identification keys to generic and specific level with corresponding
illustrations. Each genus includes a short morphological description
referring only to the species that appear in the present work. In
monospecific genera the species name follows the description; if
plurispecific a key to species is given. We recognised 286 species,
which represent 68% of the European hepatic flora.

http://einstein.uab.es/mbrugues/A%20Comanda%20Handbook.htm

--
Montserrat Brugués

UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA
Facultat de Biociencies.
Unitat de Botanica.
Departament de Biologia Animal,
de Biologia Vegetal i d'Ecologia
08193 BELLATERRA
BARCELONA. SPAIN

Tel. 34 93 581 19 89 / Fax. 34 93 581 13 21

http://einstein.uab.es/mbrugues/HOME.htm

Friday, October 23, 2009

[IAB blog] New comment on BRYONET: papers needed.

BRYONET

Dear Brynet Members:
I will appreciate to have reprints/information on the Moss and Global
warming or
any publication related to the C02 sequestration by mosses/bryophytes.
Kind regards
Dinesh
dinesh.botany@gmail.com

RE: BRYONET: ventral surface of leaf

BRYONET

I have found all the recent messages fascinating but now for a real
problem-for me at least that is.
What is dorsal and ventral in the appendages of Pleurozia?
Best Wishes
Jeff Duckett

Jeffrey G.Duckett, BA PhD (Cantab.), School of Biological & Chemical
Sciences, Fogg Building, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road,
London E1 4NS Tel: (++44)(0)208 882 7485 email: j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk

BRYONET: break-through paper?

BRYONET

Dear Bryonetters,
I just wanted to bring this highly interesting paper to your
attention, since it was published in a genetical journal that many of
us don't regularly read:

Korpelainen, H. et al. 2008: The first sex-specific molecular marker
discovered in the moss Pseudocalliergon trifarium. Journal of Heredity
99(6): 581-587.

Best wishes,
Johannes E.

--
Dr. Johannes Enroth
PhD, University Lecturer, Bryologist
Dept. of Biological and Environmental Sciences
P.O. Box 65
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
______

Re: BRYONET: ventral surface of leaf

BRYONET

Dan,

Interesting thought. But I don't need to think about whether it is
succubous
or incubous when using ventral or dorsal to refer the margins of leaves,
unless you let the plant upside down.

Dorsal and ventral have been used in so many ways and also in different
dimensions, our ablility of describing these samall plants is just so
limited! But I have to say that incubous and succubous are quite unique and
functionable terms. Even for me, far from the language origin, I could
immediately know what they mean in bryology after they were taught. I
noticed these terms were used by Nees in 1833, I guess the time when they
were first applied for describing leaf arrangements in liverworts must be
earlier than that. The observation on the two major kinds of leaf
arrangements and the choice of using incubous/succubous were amazing.

Best wishes,

Xiaolan He
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryonet is a service of the International Association of Bryologists (IAB)
and is administered by Janice Glime <jmglime@mtu.edu>
through Michigan Technological University
IAB Officers:
President Jeff Duckett <j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk>
Secretary-Treasurer Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
First VP: Masanobu Higuchi, Second VP: Jiri Vana
To join IAB ($11 per year), contact Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
IAB website: http://www.bryology.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Re: BRYONET: ventral surface of leaf

BRYONET

Since we are on some frequently used terms, I have been putting together a
key to the bryophytes of the area where my course on tropical bryophytes
is to be taught. In keying liverworts I find preferable the terms
"antical" and "postical" to refer to the margins of leaves of the
Jungermanniales. When one uses the terms "dorsal" and "ventral" the idea
of succubous and incubous must be kept in mind before one can answer the
question of which margin is dorsal and which margin is ventral.

Dan Norris

Friday, October 16, 2009

AW: BRYONET: [Fwd: question on Bryophytes]

BRYONET

Dear Jana

you might be interested in this paper which we recently published:

Bergamini A, Ungricht S, Hofmann H 2009. An elevational shift of cryophilous
bryophytes in the last century Â– an effect of climate warming? Diversity and
Distributions, 15, 871Â–879.

best wishes
Ariel

RE: BRYONET: [Fwd: question on Bryophytes]

BRYONET

Dear Jana,
There are one or two comments in our article;
Duckett JG & Pressel S. 2009. London's changing bryophyte flora. Field
Bryology. 98:30-46.
Have a look at other numbers of this journal since there are lots of bits
and pieces about bryophyte distribution changes in the British Isles.
One species that seems particularly relevant to your study is Cololejeunea
minutissima.
You might also contact Chris Preston and Mark Hill for up to the minute info
on species with changing distribution patterns.
Best wishes
Jeff

Jeffrey G.Duckett, BA PhD (Cantab.), Emeritus Professor of Botany, School of
Biological & Chemical Sciences, Fogg Building, Queen Mary, University of
London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS Tel: (++44)(0)208 882 7485 email:
j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk

BRYONET: global warming and bryophytes.

BRYONET

Dear Jana,
You might find useful information in my online book on Bryophyte
Ecology <http://www.bryoecol.mtu.edu/>. In the first volume there is a
chapter on temperature. It does not directly address the question of
global warming, but it addresses effects of high temperatures on
bryophytes, so it is easy to deduce what would happen to certain species.
Have your searched in Google Scholar for bryophytes and temperature?
Best wishes,
Janice
--
****************************************
Dr. Janice M. Glime, Prof. Emerita
(Michigan Technological University)
Past-President of IAB, Manager of Bryonet
219 Hubbell St.
Houghton, MI 49931 USA
phone: 906-482-1610
email: jmglime@mtu.edu
****************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryonet is a service of the International Association of Bryologists (IAB)
and is administered by Janice Glime <jmglime@mtu.edu>
through Michigan Technological University
IAB Officers:
President Jeff Duckett <j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk>
Secretary-Treasurer Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
First VP: Masanobu Higuchi, Second VP: Jiri Vana
To join IAB ($11 per year), contact Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
IAB website: http://www.bryology.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BRYONET: [Fwd: question on Bryophytes]

BRYONET

Hello
my name is Jana Boussier and I'm studiing biology at KULeuven university
in Belguim. This semester I have to write a paper on the interaction
between global warming and bryphytes. Do you have any information on
this topic. It would be very nice, because the online information is
limiting.

with kind regards

Jana Boussier

--
J.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryonet is a service of the International Association of Bryologists (IAB)
and is administered by Janice Glime <jmglime@mtu.edu>
through Michigan Technological University
IAB Officers:
President Jeff Duckett <j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk>
Secretary-Treasurer Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
First VP: Masanobu Higuchi, Second VP: Jiri Vana
To join IAB ($11 per year), contact Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
IAB website: http://www.bryology.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BRYONET: Re: Bryonet: Etymologies of Bryophyte Names

BRYONET

Another useful source, if you can get it, is Dixon HN. 1924 (3rd edn).
The student's handbook of British mosses. Sumfield and Day. Reprinted
1954.

This gives derivations for generic names. Sadly, Jameson's sister volume
for liverworts does not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sean Edwards, Thursley, UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryonet is a service of the International Association of Bryologists (IAB)
and is administered by Janice Glime <jmglime@mtu.edu>
through Michigan Technological University
IAB Officers:
President Jeff Duckett <j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk>
Secretary-Treasurer Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
First VP: Masanobu Higuchi, Second VP: Jiri Vana
To join IAB ($11 per year), contact Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
IAB website: http://www.bryology.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

BRYONET: (no subject)

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:49:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Delgadillo Moya Claudio <moya@ibunam2.ibiologia.unam.mx>
To: bryonet-l@mtu.edu
Subject: Re: BRYONET: Etymologies of Bryophyte Names
Claudio sent this message for distribution, and I have attached my
file of word roots to it. Most of these came from Stearn's Botanical
Latin and Borror's Dictionary of Word Roots and Combining Forms. Since
then I have acquired Roland Wilbur Brown's book, Composition of
Scientific Words (much larger, 882 pages), published by the Smithsonian
Institution Press in 1956. I haven't used it for bryophytes, but it
does not include generic names. I found brachys (short), but not
Brachythecium.
Lily, I hope when your project is "finished" that you will post it on
the web and that we can link to it from the IAB website. It will be
very useful for teaching.
Janice
BRYONET
Janice sent the "List of bryological word roots and meanings, from a
Bryonet message of February 27, 1999". If this is still available, it
may be newly distributed.
Claudio
Dr. Claudio Delgadillo Moya
Jefe del Departamento de Botanica
Instituto de Biologia, UNAM
Apartado Postal 70-233
Ciudad Universitaria, Delegacion Coyoac?n
04510 Mexico, D.F. Tel. 5622-9070

Re: BRYONET: Bryonet: Etymologies of Bryophyte Names

BRYONET

Dear Lily,

There is a very nice dictionary of prefixes, suffixes and combining forms
that you can download for free in the following address:

http://showtime.arkansasonline.com/spellingbee/site/images/pre_suf_comb.pdf

I have found it a great source for finding out the roots of moss names
(either Greek or Latin).

Take care!

Juan

Juan Larrain B.
Departamento de Botanica
Universidad de Concepcion
Casilla 160-C, Concepcion, Chile
musgoschiloe@gmail.com
Fono: (56) 41-2204418
Fax: (56) 41-2246005
www.musgosdechile.cl
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryonet is a service of the International Association of Bryologists (IAB)
and is administered by Janice Glime <jmglime@mtu.edu>
through Michigan Technological University
IAB Officers:
President Jeff Duckett <j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk>
Secretary-Treasurer Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
First VP: Masanobu Higuchi, Second VP: Jiri Vana
To join IAB ($11 per year), contact Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
IAB website: http://www.bryology.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: BRYONET: Bryonet: Etymologies of Bryophyte Names

BRYONET

Lily,

The best general resource I know is Donald J. Borror's "Dictionary of
Word Roots and Combining Forms" which gives you the etymology of all
the parts of names based on Latin and Greek, plus some. Last time I
used it, it was in its 11th edition (1971). Mayfield Publishing.

...just checked Amazon: it is still in print.

Note, however, it won't help with names based on people or places.

David H. Wagner, Ph.D.
Northwest Botanical Institute
P.O. Box 30064
Eugene, OR 97403-1064

davidwagner@mac.com
541-344-3327

http://web.mac.com/davidwagner/Site/FernZenMosses.html

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

RE: BRYONET: Bryonet: Etymologies of Bryophyte Names [SEC=Unclassified]

BRYONET

There are various books dealing with the subject. E.g., Mabberley.
Don't ignore Stearn (Botanical Latin). Crum (Mosses of the Great Lakes
Forest) also includes info on the origin of the names used. There is, I
seem to recall, an on-line version for Europe. I think also an on-line
"Roots of Names" list that Janice Glime drew attention to some years
ago. Many names are not of Latin origin, but of Greek root. Some are a
combination of both, which makes it challenging to try and work out what
the name actually means. Similarly, if you refer to a Latin source you
may return the incorrect root of the word if the real origin is Greek.
But, have fun.

Prof Rod Seppelt
Principal Research Scientist
Australian Antarctic Division
203 Channel Higway
Kingston, Tasmania, 7050
Australia
Ph +61 (0)3 6232 3438

___________________________________________________________________________

RE: BRYONET: Bryonet: Etymologies of Bryophyte Names

BRYONET

Try asking David Meagher!

He recently published the etymology of Australian liverwort and hornwort
genus names,in Fieldiana Vol. 47 (2008). I think he has one for mosses
too.

BRYONET: Bryonet: Etymologies of Bryophyte Names

BRYONET

Hello,

Can anyone suggest where I might find information on the etymologies of
bryophyte names? I am trying to look up the etymologies for use in an
interpretive guide to the Bryophytes found along the Miniature Forests
of Cape Horn,Chile, trail. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Have a lovely day!

Lily Lewis
Fairbanks, AK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryonet is a service of the International Association of Bryologists (IAB)
and is administered by Janice Glime <jmglime@mtu.edu>
through Michigan Technological University
IAB Officers:
President Jeff Duckett <j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk>
Secretary-Treasurer Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
First VP: Masanobu Higuchi, Second VP: Jiri Vana
To join IAB ($11 per year), contact Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
IAB website: http://www.bryology.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: BRYONET: local endemics

BRYONET

Hi John,

Honestly, I and others have addressed your questions a & b frequently
in the literature (some would say ad nauseam!). No point in repeating
it all here. The Phylocode, just like the current system is
hierarchical, for sure. But there are no labels (ranks) attached to
the levels.

There are two kinds of hierarchies, in general: unranked and ranked.
Most human knowledge is organized into hierarchies, where the ranked
type is the more unusual. The latter makes sense when the entities at
a particular level are comparable, as in the military where majors
need to know where they stand with other officers regardless of where
they travel. But unranked hierarchies make more sense when the
entities at a level are not comparable in any way, and our mind deals
quite well with them everyday. Educated people learn the nestedness
of hierarchies easily (e.g., "cheese" is nested in "dairy products"
and then in "food", while "cheddar" is nested within "cheese") -- no
ranks needed.

In an unranked biological classification we would use higher-level
names to orient readers as to the placement of uninomials, just as we
do now (e.g., you often give higher-level taxonomic names in general
papers). To take your example, if it was clear in context we were
talking about clade Mimulus I would just say "your Breweri picture
looks to me like Bigelowii." If it was a more general context I would
say "Breweri (Mimulus)" to be clear. If it was a really general
context, e.g., a book being read by general biologist who might not
know where Mimulus fits, I would say "Breweri (Mimulus;
Angiospermae)", etc. Homonyms are not a problem in normal
conversation; if there are several Johns in the picture. you use their
last name to distinguish them.

But all this is in the literature, which I strongly advise interested
parties to go from here. An email thread is not the best way to share
information. As suggested earlier in this thread, a good place to
start is the paper by Kirsten Fisher [Systematic Botany (2006), 31(1):
pp. 13Â–30]. For a higher-level example in bryology, see: Bryologist
110(1): 46-73.

Best,

Brent

**********************************************************
Brent D. Mishler
Professor, Department of Integrative Biology
Director, University and Jepson Herbaria
Mailing address:
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
UNIVERSITY AND JEPSON HERBARIA
1001 VALLEY LIFE SCIENCES BLDG # 2465
BERKELEY, CA 94720-2465 USA
Phone: (510) 642-6810
FAX: (510) 643-5390
E-mail: bmishler@calmail.berkeley.edu
WWW: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/people/mishler.html
**********************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryonet is a service of the International Association of Bryologists (IAB)
and is administered by Janice Glime <jmglime@mtu.edu>
through Michigan Technological University
IAB Officers:
President Jeff Duckett <j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk>
Secretary-Treasurer Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
First VP: Masanobu Higuchi, Second VP: Jiri Vana
To join IAB ($11 per year), contact Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
IAB website: http://www.bryology.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: BRYONET: local endemics

BRYONET

Hi Brent,

Thanks for the response. I take your point that we do not need
molecular data to construct phylogenies, and I agree that phylogenies
are useful and interesting. We are still not going to have detailed
additional phylogenetic information of any kind for lots of organisms
on this planet any time soon.

But one (among several) reasons that you are encountering what you
see as unwarranted resistance to some of your ideas is that you are
proposing changing a system that basically works without explaining
properly (a) what you want to put in its place and (b) why you want
to change the naming system.

To take (b) first, it seems that both your system or the current
system are hierarchical. What you seem to dislike is giving
hard-and-fast names to the levels of hierarchy - "genus", "family",
and the like. But even in your system, you will need names like
"first-order clade" "higher clade" etc, to communicate about them so
what is really fundamentally different? From talking to Bruce, it
seems that you like a rank-free system because it helps avoid the
paradoxes that arise in examples like the Hawaiian Silverswords
versus Madia when one adheres to strict monophyly without regard to
the "branch-lengths" (i.e. the fact that Silverwords changed a whole
lot more than Californian Madias in the same time-interval). Is this
true? My own preference would be to tweak the existing system to
take care of this problem, which I pointed out myself on this thread,
rather than have a major revolution in our whole way of naming things
just because of this. Lets akoow genera to be nested in some cases,
that's a simple solution that would work.

Concerning (a), i.e., how do you really want names to work? - can
we take a specific example, say the thing that's currently called
Mimulus breweri. If I want to tell a colleague his photo of "Mimulus
breweri" looks more like Mimuls bigelowii to me, do I simply write
"breweri (Mimulus)"? - I have no intellectual problem with that, - to
me its an essentially trivial intellectually which part of the name
comes first - but it raises all kinds of problems with indexing etc
to put the breweri part first and I don't see what it achieves.
Similarly, making the name uninomial by doing away with the space
between words - (either Brewerimimulus or Mimulusbreweri) seems to me
to just sacrifice some practicality without changing anything
fundamental. How would you REALLY name entities in the new Jepson
Manual if it was entirely up to you? I just don't get it as far as
practical nomenclature is concerned, please explain.

Of course, if new data suggested that Miulus brewri was really two
"clades" or was part of another clade, we should make the appropriate
name changes. That exactly what the authors are doing whenever
warranted- but there are plenty of ways to do that with our existing
versatile naming system.

Best wishes,

John.

Research Associate,
University and Jepson Herbaria,
University of California,
Berekeley, CA.

jcgame@stanford.edu
510 527 7855

Re: BRYONET: local endemics

BRYONET

Hi Ken,

Yes, I am saying that the rank "species" does not fit the complexity
of evolutionary processes. nor do the other ranks. But if you read my
papers and other literature about the Phylocode you'll see I am not
advocating using clade names like "Clade 124!7N48". The clade names
to be be used are regular names, following common usage if possible.

Just between us and the lamppost, the reason ranks are still used in
the new Jepson Manual is sociological. The community can only move so
far so fast; there is an amazing amount of intrinsic intellectual
conservatism, even in science (a field that prides itself on open-
mindedness and questioning authority!). Getting botanists to use
monophyletic taxa is the most important step!

And no, I don't think (and never said) that a phylogenetic study
reveals the "true" phylogeny. Like all science, it is just a model of
reality that is the best fit to current data (which might be entirely
morphological, that's fine), a hypothesis to be tested by current data.

The sad thing in all this Bryonet debate, from my perspective, is that
while systematics is currently in a very exciting phase of its
history, at the forefront of the biological sciences in innovation and
rapid advance (and acknowledged as such by general theoreticians,
philosophers, and empirical biologists from ecologists to
genomicists), some of our best bryological practitioners are either
unaware or even actively working against this progress. We need to
break down the artificial barrier between alpha taxonomy and
phylogenetics -- it is all the same endeavor, just different scales.
And as I just mentioned in the response to John, all sources of data
(morphological and molecular) need to be used at all levels. Times
are tough in academia at the moment, now is the time to come together
and push our field forward.

Best,

Brent

Re: BRYONET: local endemics

BRYONET

Hi John,

I think I can put my finger on one misunderstanding, based on this and
Ken's recent note. This entire discussion thread has nothing
whatsoever to do with molecular data versus morphological data. It
has to do with how to analyze data and reflect it in classifications.

No one should confuse "phylogenetic" with "genetic". Cladistics (aka
phylogenetics) is a set of methods for evaluating data (any kind of
data) and reflecting the relationships in classification. It can and
has been applied perfectly well to purely morphological data. DNA is
just a type of data -- it can be evaluated phylogenetically, but
almost as often unfortunately is evaluated phenetically (using
distance methods). The best analyses combine all sources of data,
using phylogenetic methods.

Best,

Brent

Re: BRYONET: local endemics

BRYONET

Brent,
In spite of the old saw, "it is better to keep ones mouth shut and let
people think you are stupid than to open ones mouth and prove it", I ask
the
following questions.
Are you advocating not using the term species because reality is more
complex than that simple concept? Then what do we call those taxa/clades
that are worth conserving? Clade 124!7N48?
In spite of the strict monophyly in the new Jepson Manual, I bet they still
used genus, species and family designations. Why did they use them? They
used them because they are still the only sensible way to organize and
communicate the information that is the reason for the book. What is the
rankless way of naming taxa? Do we say the ruralis clade in the Syntrichia
clade? Do we say this is the Mishler clade in the laevipila clade in the
Syntrichia clade? How about the Oregon clade in the Mishler clade in the
laevipila clade in the Syntrichia clade? At a certain point we stop, and it
is necessarily an arbitrary decision.
But if you insist on a rankless system, using binomials is a copout because
you cannot use them without some concept of rank, even if it is only by
reminding us of the Linnaean ranked system. So that question needs to be
answered with a language that can be used quickly and efficiently, and one
that gives some sense of how many clades are above and below the group we
are talking about. The Linnaean system does that with different endings for
family and class names. It is crude and oversimplified, but it works for
the most part.
Everyone knows that I do not have formal training in evaluating cladistic
and genetic studies. But even I can recognize problems with using these
tools and calling the results "truth", or maybe even the best "truth we
have". I am especially wary of studies by people unable to correctly
identify the plants they are testing, and everyone is aware of horror
stories centering on GenBank. I could well be wrong, but most of these
"definitive" studies are only using one nuclear, one mitochondrial, and one
chloroplast gene. So few genomes have been completed, much less compared,
that it seems premature to say that those three genes are the best to
unveil
the evolution of the taxa. It may well be that when more complete genomes
have been mapped, that the differences and relationships these 3 genes are
showing are minor blips compared to major groupings in other groups of as
yet unexplored genes. Moreover, most of the studies I have read use one
exemplar of a particular taxon, and often one exemplar from a particular
genus (at least in the higher order studies). What if that exemplar is the
atypical one, or worse, not even correctly identified? I have also seen
that
the addition of just one taxon/ exemplar can drastically change a tree. How
about the selection of the correct out groups, that also is very important.
The trees generated by these studies can only portray probabilities of
being
correct. If probabilities are reality, then no one has ever won the
lottery.
So I ask the question: to date, do these cladistic and genetic studies
absolutely prove something that contradicts morphology? I am not yet
convinced, but from the way you write, Brent, I get the feeling that you
accept both these methods and the conclusions that they produce as "truth".
My mind is completely open to the complexity of the tree of life that
suggest that assignation of taxonomic rank is ridiculous. I see and agree
that as soon as you have one rank, you have an infinite number of ranks. I
can see to some point, the concept of monophyly so long as the ancestor is
not included in the clade. But I feel that it is premature to use genetic
and cladistic studies to "prove" that the traditional family and generic
relationships are polyphyletic, until we have done a lot more work. It is
perfectly fair in my mind to say that these studies strongly suggest
certain
conclusions, but I do not yet believe overwhelming evidence is at hand.
I also sympathize with Richard Zander's complaint with cladistic trees that
do not identify (with names) the ancestors at any particular point of
evolutionary divergence. A new clade has does not evolve from a node, it
evolves from an organism, why can't we name it? Do rankless monophyletic
cladistic trees illuminate true evolution or hide it?
Lastly, what happens when we uncover even more complex problems like
reticulated evolution, or gene transfer between taxa, or who knows what
wondrous phenomenon? How do we talk about it? Yes, we could say this clade
has had a non-branching evolution. What if the particular evolution shows
the combination of two large clades, that is to say non-nesting? This seems
a probable scenario in less complex organisms. I know that the Linnaean
system fails here as well, but a biological species concept might
eventually
apply, even if we have trouble with the higher classifications. But, as I
understand it, strict monophyly is completely destroyed in this situation.
Brent, this is an important point in my mind, and I would like to get a
better handle on it. If I am wrong here, please help me to understand. The
reason this is so critical is that if we start making exceptions to strict
rules, then the exceptions can quickly overtake the rule, and we have not
advanced the science beyond the Linnaean system.
Therefore, I believe we need to remember that both of these systems are
just
models for reality, not reality. Both models have weak points and strong
points. So until I feel better about the answers to the questions I have
raised above, I will continue to use the Linnaean system, and bear in mind
that it is only a model, and that it falls down in many places. I use it
because it is still the best way to organize and communicate my thoughts
about biological entities that I encounter in my work.
I am going to send this message now before the power goes out, it is
raining
and blowing like hell here in the Santa Cruz Mountains!
Ken
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryonet is a service of the International Association of Bryologists (IAB)
and is administered by Janice Glime <jmglime@mtu.edu>
through Michigan Technological University
IAB Officers:
President Jeff Duckett <j.g.duckett@qmul.ac.uk>
Secretary-Treasurer Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
First VP: Masanobu Higuchi, Second VP: Jiri Vana
To join IAB ($11 per year), contact Jim Shevock <JShevock@calacademy.org>
IAB website: http://www.bryology.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BRYONET: levels of selection

BRYONET

David Wagner wrote:

"...natural selection. And that natural selection is just as likely to
select for stability based on adaptive value of plesiomorphies as it
is to select for change due to advantages of apomorphies. Natural
selection may produce species that have unusual breeding systems
inimical to monophyly. Natural selection coupled with a dynamic
environment serves to emphasize the distinctness of the entities we
can call species. Recognizing species as the basic unit upon which
natural selection acts distinguishes the species rank as different
from all others."

I hope I might politely change the subject away from classification
and take off from what Dave says, perhaps for the benefit of some
scholars out there in bryonet-land who would be interested in the
hierarchical evolutionary process.

I think there are levels of selection.

The most familiar selection to those of us who teach evolution
classes is what we evoke in explaining such organismal adaptations as
hairpoints on leaves in Grimmia laevigata and its relatives or a
short generation time in Pluridium subulata and its relatives. This
is selection that happens among individuals mostly within
populations. In ideal sexual populations, you could alternatively
view it as among alleles (forms of a gene) that are in individuals in
a population. Those individuals that are more well-endowed survive
and reproduce better than individuals less well-endowed. Theory and
many experiments have show that this sort of familiar selection very
quickly optimizes most quantitative traits. Most of the time most
plants are expected to have traits not too far from the optimum for
that kind of plant as it lives in its usual habitat. When the trait
rose to prominence, the selection would have been directional
selection. But later selection would have ended up being stabilizing
selection. I generally imagine there is plenty of stabilizing
selection out there. (Brent might like to think this is not the case,
but I guess when pressed he would admit that there was probably
stabilizing selection in the past or at least eliminating extreme
detrimental mutants in a form of normalizing selection, and so on.)
Anyway, when I say "kind of plant" I do not only mean "kind" at the
species level specifically. A vast group could be adapted to a sort
of niche (all the species of Sphagnum), and the characters of that
vast group might be conservative because they are (or have been in
the past) subject to stabilizing selection. Within that general sort
of niche, there might be finer portions of the niche space claimed by
smaller groups (different species of Sphagnum) There might also be
fine-scale stabilizing selection that acts on different ecotypes,
keeping them different, for example a population on the coast that is
bathed in maritime fog versus an ecotype that is predominant inland.
Blah, blah, blah... (Yes, I know that all selection is not external
niche-based selection, but the same argument applies to selection
that is judged internally as the coadapted genome...) blah, blah, blah.

There are also higher levels of "selection" once you have a whole
bunch of what is usually referred to as "species" in the regional
species pool. This kind of selection goes under many names, including
such things as species sorting, species filtering, or even ecological
succession. The use of the phrase "species selection" is unfortunate
because the things that are being selected in a local community are
avatars (i.e. the local representatives of a clade generally not
consisting of closest relatives: see my previous email) and going
beyond the local population, then they are various groups some
monophyletic and others paraphyletic. "Clade selection" is also used
often, and it has some advantages terminologically, but not the
advantage of actually being strictly speaking monophyletically
correct. The selection we are talking about is specific to the level
at which it acts because of the criterion of selection that sorts the
groups that differ by that criterion. Consider the simple case of
just one character with two states, like dioicy versus monoicy. If we
start out with a diverse bunch of things that are dioicous and then
monoicy evolves repeatedly, monoicy is derived and dioicy is
plesiomorphic. (Ignore for the moment that in the real world there
are reversals to dioicy). We would end up with two states and
variously related plants possessing those two states. Now, let's
imagine that in a desert region, there is high-level selection for
monoicy, and in a forest region there is high-level selection for
dioicy. The two floras would come to differ. The desert region would
have relatively more subspecies, species, subsections, sections, etc.
of monoicous plants, and the forested region would have relatively
more subspecies, species, subsections, sections, etc., of dioicous
plants. But, as with the ancestral and derived forms of alleles, the
dioicous ramification had a head-start over the various monoicous
derived clades. Thus, it is at least slightly incorrect to emphasize
monophyly in the name of the macroevolutionary process. Blah, blah.

The microevolutionary process of organismal adaptation by selection
among individuals differs in many important ways from the
macroevolutionary process of a biota evolving by selection among
clades. Furthermore, the lower level process feeds the upper level
process. Adaptation at the lower level corresponds to "mutation" at
the higher level. It is only because of adaptations at the lower
level that clades have come to differ in biologically meaningful
ways. An important difference is the opportunity for sex. At the
lower level, there is usually some way for recombination to happen
among loci, and this means that loci can coadapt with one another
very quickly. At the macroevolutionary scale(s), there is not a
regular opportunity for recombination. At the lower level, for
quantitative traits, we rarely worry much about the effects of
mutation mostly going in one direction (mutational drive). At the
upper level(s), the corresponding process, annoyingly called
"speciational" drive may be very important in affecting the balance
of different kinds of organisms in the flora. For example, there may
be a great deal of speciational drive that changes forms that are
unspecialized as to rock type into forms that are specialized
calciphiles. This could account for a large number of endemic
calciphiles whose calfiphily is convergent. Blah, blah, blah...

Okay, anyway, I'm getting to the point. When Dave says stuff like,
"Recognizing species as the basic unit upon which natural selection
acts distinguishes the species rank as different from all others," it
sort of drives me nuts. I think I might know what he feels, but would
my students who also read bryonet? Let me try to unravel into my
language what I think he is saying. First, I suppose he means that
different avatars fill different niches in the local community, and
selection among avatars keeps most of them in each their own familiar
niche (except when a small subset ends up on an empty island for a
long time), and that then there is stabilizing selection among
individuals of each avatar that is very similar in all the
communities where that clade lives throughout a fairly large
geographic range. Second, I think that he means that there are gaps
between different stable adaptive states and so much of the evolution
that ends up being taxonomically important happens in a punctuational
manner. But surely, he doesn't think that the gaps are all the same
size. Sometimes when there is a punctuational shift it moves the new
clade a long long ways from the old adaptive norm (and the resulting
thing is considered a monotypic genus), and sometimes it moves it
just to another rise on the same adaptive cordillera (and the
resulting thing is considered a subspecies). Third, I think that he
might mean that at some point, things are indivisible because they
are all the same. Again I agree that this is be basically true if one
sticks to one geographic region and studies organisms that move
around that region pretty well (it also greatly "helps" if the region
was glaciated), but anyone who has tried to come up with a treatment
of all the specimens from around the world in a genus of any size,
will realize that many widespread species vary geographically. One
could break them up into segregate species, but being a splitter is
all a matter of degree, unless you get down to where there are no
widespread species. Even if you went to an absurd amount of splitting
(what Richard Zander wishes to avoid), you would end up with entities
that were made not equal in other respects, such as the degree of
distinctiveness when compared to their closest other "species".

Finally, I think all this stuff of which I write about avatars and
niches and hierarchical selection is way-totally interesting, and
need not be motivated by any desire to figure out how we are going to
formally name species or clades. Classification and nominclatural
rules are a little bit interesting. The evolutionary play on the
ecological stage is riveting, at least that's what I think.

Respectfully, Paul Wilson
California State University Northridge

Friday, October 30, 2009

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Monday, October 26, 2009

Friday, October 23, 2009

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Friday, October 16, 2009

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Search blog content by labels