2010
DOI: 10.1179/037366810x12814321877589
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ephemerella readeriMüll. Hal. (Physcomitrella readeri(Müll. Hal.) I.G. Stone & G.A.M. Scott, Funariidae, Bryophyta): a genus and species new to Europe

Abstract: A morphological and molecular analysis of a Physcomitrella, collected from a reservoir margin in the north of England, revealed this to be P. readeri, a species new to Europe. The present study clarifies previous confusion over the taxonomy of P. readeri showing it to be clearly distinct in both sporophytic and gametophytic characters from P. patens and uniform across its world range from England to USA, Japan and Australasia. While phylograms of the ITS1 region from both the Physcomitrella species, Physcomitr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These sequences were included because the information associated with the GenBank accession is incomplete and does not refer to the voucher, hence does not reveal that these belong to the same original specimen. When we compare these publically available sequences to the newly generated ones here, some slight differences are revealed, reflecting either the presence of distinct paralogs among the rDNA repeats (Hooper et al, 2010), or minor sequencing errors. As strains and vouchers are shared among researchers and sequenced, it is important that the redundancy of orthologous sequences from a single voucher can be inferred from the GenBank files, and hence it is critical that the voucher information is included.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…These sequences were included because the information associated with the GenBank accession is incomplete and does not refer to the voucher, hence does not reveal that these belong to the same original specimen. When we compare these publically available sequences to the newly generated ones here, some slight differences are revealed, reflecting either the presence of distinct paralogs among the rDNA repeats (Hooper et al, 2010), or minor sequencing errors. As strains and vouchers are shared among researchers and sequenced, it is important that the redundancy of orthologous sequences from a single voucher can be inferred from the GenBank files, and hence it is critical that the voucher information is included.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Inferences from variation in DNA sequences already prompted accommodating subsp. readeri in Physcomitridium (Goffinet & Buck 2011;Hooper et al 2010), a name first proposed by Roth (1911), and although P. magdalenae is clearly not sister to Physcomitrella patens (Liu et al 2012), it is premature to introduce a new generic name until the placement of monospecific genera exhibiting intermediate or otherwise distinct patterns of sporophytic reductions (e.g., Cygnicollum Fife & Magill, Bryobeckettia Fife or Loiseaubryum Bizot), is assessed, and thereby the circumscription of all genera within the crown group of Funariaceae. Table 1.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations