Classification mosses

The inversion operation i which leads to the g/u classification of the electronic states is not a true symmetry operation because it does not commute with the Fermi contact hyperfine Hamiltonian. The operator i acts within the molecule-fixed axis system on electron orbital and vibrational coordinates only. It does not affect electron or nuclear spin coordinates and therefore cannot be used to classify the total wave function of the molecule. Since g and u are not exact labels, it was realised by Bunker and Moss [265] that electric dipole pure rotational transitions were possible in ll], the g/u symmetry breaking (and simultaneous ortho-para mixing) being relatively large for levels very close to the dissociation asymptote. The electric dipole transition moment for the 19,1 19,0 rotational transition in the ground electronic state was calculated... 

Moss, G. P., Recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology on the Nomenclature and Classification of Enzyme-Catalysed Reactions. In URL http //www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iubmb/enzyme/ 1992. 

Furse, M.T., Moss D., Wright, J.F. and Armitage, P.D. (1984) The influence of seasonal taxonomic factors on the ordination and classification of running-water sites in Great Britain and on the prediction of their macro-invertebrate communities. Freshwater Biol., 14, 257-280. 

The exact nature of the reasons for and the ease of formation of the surface complex are still not entirely known. One can visualize certain structural requirements of the underlying solid surface atoms in order to accomodate the reactants, and this has led to one important set of theories. Also, as will be seen, various electron transfer steps are involved in the formation of the complex bonds, and so the electronic nature of the catalyst is also undoubtedly important. This has led to other important considerations concerning the nature of catalysts. The classification of catalysts of Table 2.1-1 gives some specific examples (Innes see Moss [7]). Recent compilations also give very useful overviews of catalytic activity Thomas [8] and Wolfe [9]. Burwell [10] has discussed the analogy between catalytic and chain reactions ... 

An alternative and business-centered classification is proposed by (Moss and Atre 2003) ... 

Voo et al. (1994) classify head injuries as follows (i) skull fracture, (ii) focal brain injuries, and (iii) diffuse brain injuries. Scalp damage does not have the same importance as brain injury or skull fracture. The seriousness of neck injuiy is also low compared with brain injury or skull fracture (Hume et al., 1995). Compared with skull fracture, brain injury is far more serious, and needs to be given particular importance when considering the protective effect of the helmet under direct impact (Moss et al., 2009). It should be noted that this classification is intended pmely to specify the type of damage and not its occurrence, as in the majority of accidents these injuries overlap to some extent. In this chapter, skull fractures are briefly mentioned before brain injury is reviewed in more detail. 

Schimper, therefore, not only created the first modem familial classification of pleurocarpous mosses, but reversed the philosophy upon which the classification was based. His pioneering efforts laid the groundwork from which all subsequent classification attempts diverged. 

Philibert never proposed any sort of general classification. It should be noted, though, that Philibert primarily based his conclusions on the observations of acrocarpous mosses. He did discuss pleurocarps in the more general articles (especially those on the endostome), but his primary data were from acrocarps. However, he presented principles npon which a classification could be constructed. 

In the same way that Brotherus (1901-1909) cnlminated the era in which classification of pleurocarpous mosses was dominated by the gametophyte, later on Brotherus (1924, 1925) took Fleischer s lead in sporophytic emphasis and applied it across the board to the pleurocarps in the second edition of Die natilrlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Dixon (1932) summarized this philosophy in Verdoom s Manual of Bryology. 

The Fleischer-Brotherus system dominated moss systematics to the end of the twentieth century. That is not to say that there have not been attempts to refine the classification, but they have been just that, modifications. For example, Crosby (Figure 1.8), probably the most modem ardent follower of Philibert s principles, reexamined the Hookeriales and divided them into families along strictly peristomial lines (Crosby, 1974). I used primarily peristomial features in my refinement of the familial concept of the Entodontaceae (Buck, 1980). With a broader perspective, Vitt (1984) presented a family classification of all mosses. Each of these examples, and more could be cited, relied on the assumption, sometimes unstated, that characters of peristomial morphology are conservative and therefore are the best indicators of phylogenetic relationships among the pleurocarps. 

Buck, W. R. (1991) The basis for familial classification of pleurocarpous mosses. Advances in Bryology, 4 169-185. 

Buck, W. R., Cox, C. J., Shaw, A. J. and Goffinet, B. (2004 [2005]) Ordinal relationships of pleurocarpous mosses, with special emphasis on the Hookeriales. Systematics and Biodiversity, 2 121-145. Crosby, M. R. (1974) Toward a revised classification of the Hookeriaceae (Musci). Journal of the Hattori Botanical laboratory, 38 129-141. 

Goffinet, B. and Buck, W. R. (2004) Systematics of the Bryophyta (mosses) From molecules to a revised classification. In Molecular Systematics of Bryophytes (ed. B. Goffinet, V. Hollowell and R. Magill). Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis, pp. 205-239. 

Several authors (Brotherus, 1924-1925 Vitt, 1984 Buck and Goffinet, 2000 and others, summarized in Shaw, 1985 and Stone, 1986) have proposed classifications in which Mittenia is included within diplolepidous-altemate mosses. Vitt (1984) considered Rhizogoniaceae to be the sister group to Mittenia and Schistostega D. Mohr, whereas Buck and Goffinet (2000) include... 

---