Leucobryum. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Leucobryum javense 411028
Taxonomic Split 136700
(Committed on 2023-12-24)
|
|
split into |
|
Comments
Kia ora @reingered,
Do you know of recent publications about Leucobryum taxonomy? The Flora of New Zealand treatment has Australasian material as Leucobryum javense, and is more recent that the Australian citation here. as well as presenting a more explicit argument for the taxonomy it adopted.. I'm curious whether I've missed a publication, or whether we're simply stepping back in time.
Klazenga (2012), Australian Mosses Online 35. Leucobryaceae.
" Leucobryum candidum was synonymised with the Malesian L. javense (Cardot) Mitt. by Enroth (1989), but this was rejected by Yamaguchi (1993) who excluded L. candidum from the Malesian bryoflora"
[I don't have Yamaguchi 1993]
"In a revision for the Huon Peninsula, Papua New Guinea, Enroth (1990) proposed that L. candidum (Brid. ex P.Beauv.) Hook.f. & Wilson be synonymised with the Javanese L. javense (Brid.) Mitt. He examined type material of L. javense (leg. Commerson) and discussed at length the difficulty in locating type material of Dicranum candidum. He nevertheless placed L. candidum in synonymy, arguing that he had examined “rather an extensive number of specimens (in H-BR, H-SOL, and H) which are assigned to L. candidum, and to the names given as its synonyms … from New Zealand, Tasmania, etc. Accordingly, I feel myself thoroughly familiar with these ‘species’ and their inclusion in the protean and wide-ranging L. javense seems to me inevitable.”
After the examination of a wide range of N.Z. and Australian L. candidum and a far lesser quantity of Malesian L. javense, I endorse Enroth’s (1990) concept of a broadly distributed and morphologically plastic L. javense. He stated that "even among the many variable species in this genus, L. javense is truly a bryologist’s nightmare. The only characters that remain constant in all specimens of L. javense from separate areas of its wide range are the cellular structure of the leaves and their abaxially scabrous tips. The orientation, shape, and size of the leaves and their apices exhibit exceeding plasticity." Only a single polymorphic species is accepted here for N.Z. The placement of L. candidum in the synonymy of L. javense was not accepted by Klazenga (2012)."
Hey! I'm sorry I think I missed this the first time! I think what happened is someone recommended a taxon split and I forgot to check for more recent publications than what they cited in the flag. Safe to say I will work on reverting it as I'm no expert on bryophyte taxonomy.
thanks @brenainn. Perhaps wait for input from @reingered . He could easily know of something more recent.
Yes, I was surprised by the split. It certainly seems like L. javense is a taxonomically difficult species (or perhaps a complex of cryptic species) and even just in the context of New Zealand seems to display quite a broad range of morphology and habitat types.
Allan Fife presents a pretty thorough and convincing case for L. candidum's synonymy with L. javense in his NZflora treatment and I haven't seen anything more recent to contradict that.
@brenainn it seems it'd be good if you can revert this, please.
Kia ora @brenainn,
Why did you make this taxonomic split? Particularly without asking any others for input. The Flora of New Zealand treatment for Leucobryum endorses the broad view of Leucobryum javense (i.e., having it extend to Australasia). The Flora of New Zealand treatment is from 2020, so considerably more recent than the 2012 Australian Mosses Online treatment that you cite.