Classification pleurocarps

I The History of Pleurocarp Classification Two Steps Forward, One Step Back... 

Finally, I will discuss the influence of molecular data on pleurocarp classification. In some ways it has been extraordinarily enlightening, but has completely failed us in other areas, at least... 

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. 

Principles of Pleurocarpous Moss Classification through Time.229... 

---