Checklist of the mosses of sub-Saharan Africa

94
from references published since the original
country lists.
- Where the source information does not
provide sufficient detail, group names have
been used (e.g. Senegambia, for Senegal +
Gambia). Where there is sufficient detail, and
the units are sufficiently large, intra-country
divisions have been used (e.g. South Africa
is divided into four regions), and also where
the parts are particularly isolated (e.g. the two
major islands belonging to Equatorial Guinea,
Fernando Po (Bioko) and Annobon are
recorded separately from mainland Rio Muni).
When it is not clear where all the records are
from, the group name may be used in
conjunction with an island or ‘part-country’
name (e.g. MAS(40), REU(105)).
- Where there is more than one reference for
the occurrence of a taxon in a country, I have
not in all cases checked whether the specimens
referred to are different. Where I have checked,
I have chosen between duplicates by retaining
those with: 1) more widely published
references, 2) more authoritative/detailed
references, 3) references with wider
information.
- All references seen up to the end of February
1995 have been included.
- It has been assumed that if one plant is
synonymised with another, then its distribution
data can also be transferred. A situation
where this approach could cause problems is
exemplified by Rhodobryum spathulatum,
where the type is actually Bryum aubertii, but
the collections called R. spathulatum are in
fact R. ontariense. I hope I have managed to
identify most of such cases.
- Where names from the source lists have
been synonymised, the original names under
which taxa were collected have not been
included in the distribution data; this data
should be available in the source reference.
Synonyms are only listed in alphabetic sequence
with the rest of the names, and not
under the valid taxa to which they apply. This
means that it may not be possible to work back
from a reference to the original names(s) under
which it was collected, other than by working
from the source document.
- No distinction has been made between
nomenclatural and taxonomic synonyms.
- I have found a number of taxa that do not
appear in Index Muscorum (1521), or the
Index of Mosses (80, 1644). The status of such
taxa is not always clear (although usually
nomina nuda), and they tend to get missed
from taxonomic revisions.
- I have made no judgement on the age of
records - all apparently valid records have
been accepted.
New combinations
During the compilation of this Checklist, a number
of taxa were noticed that appeared to be in need of
names in different genera. This situation has
occurred for two reasons:
- nomenclatural changes have been made
that leave ‘orphaned’ varieties or other subtaxa,
e.g. Drepanocladus fluitans has been
transferred to the genus Warnstorfia, but its
variety monodii was not included in the
transfer, and nor was it synonymised;
- where taxa have been transferred en bloc
from one genus to another (for instance
because of the discovery of an earlier valid
name for the genus) sometimes taxa have
been left behind, e.g. Eriopus cristata was
not transferred to Calyptrochaeta when Eriopus
was made a synonym of Calyptrochaeta.
In the first case I have left the taxon in its original
genus, with a note pointing to the correct location
if the variety proves to be distinct. In the second
case I have made new combinations.
There are a number of nomina nuda on the checklist
that also need a change of name, but these have
been commented on in the checklist text, and are
not covered here.
My intention is to leave the taxonomic problems
(if any) clearer. I appreciate that these transfers
may detract from the taxonomic purity of the
receiving genus, but I feel it is better than leaving
taxa in an ‘invalid’ genus. If they are not valid taxa
they should have been synonymised or excluded
as part of the original transfer. Keeping them
visible in this way may help resolve their status.