Phylogenetic inference in Leucodon Schwägr. subg. Leucodon (Leucodontaceae, Bryophyta) in the North Atlantic region

Abstract

Systematic and biogeographic relationships of mainly European and North American taxa of the moss genus Leucodon subg. Leucodon are inferred by phylogenetic reconstructions and haplotype analyses, based on sequence data from three plastid regions and nrITS. The two Macaronesian endemic species L. canariensis and L. treleasei are clearly separated from each other and from L. sciuroides, which is widespread in Eurasia including Macaronesia. A well‐supported sister‐group relationship with the American species L. curvirostris and L. julaceus indicates a New World ancestor of L. treleasei, which is probably a neoendemic species that colonized the Macaronesian islands after (recent) dispersal. The position of L. canariensis sister to the clade of L. treleasei and the American species is less well‐supported, leaving its evolutionary history ambiguous. The Eastern North American L. andrewsianus is neither molecularly nor morphologically unambiguously distinguishable from L. sciuroides. Synonymisation of L. andrewsianus with L. sciuroides solves the long‐debated question whether the latter species occurs in North America, and results in a Holarctic instead of Palaearctic distribution pattern of L. sciuroides. The Afromontane L. dracaenae cannot be clearly separated from L. sciuroides as well, whereas the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asian L. immersus differs from L. sciuroides by few substitutions and indels as well as morphologically by the short seta and immersed capsule. Further analyses are necessary before taxonomic conclusions should be inferred for L. dracaenae and L. immersus. Intraspecific diversity in L. sciuroides does not support recognition of the mainly Mediterranean var. morensis. Instead, a basic separation of Mediterranean (plus Macaronesian) versus non‐Mediterranean haplotypes is indicated. The higher haplotype diversity in the Mediterranean (and Macaronesia) in contrast to the other parts of Europe is in accordance with genetic depletion in formerly glaciated areas.

Molecular Species Delimitation in the Racomitrium canescens Complex (Grimmiaceae) and Implications for DNA Barcoding of Species Complexes in Mosses

“…The latter, however, can often be solved by amplifying ITS1 and ITS2 separately, which has also been done in phylogenetic analyses of bryophytes (e.g. [34]). Until now, mostly ITS2 has been considered as plant DNA barcode marker [32], [35].…”

Southern Scandinavian lowland populations ofRhytidium rugosum(Hedw.) Kindb. (Bryophyta, Rhytidiaceae) differ significantly from those in the mountains

“…For the ITS1 and 2, the PCR program employed was 40 cycles of 30 s at 95uC, 30 s at 52uC, and 1 min 30 s at 72uC, with the primers '18SF' and '26SR' (Rydin et al, 2004;Stech, 1999). In a few cases, the internal primers '5.8SC' and '5.8SN' (Bartish et al, 2005) were employed to get the entire sequence.…”

“…2.0 or 3.1), and the sequencing products were cleaned using the DyeEx 96 Kit (Qiagen). The same primers as for the initial PCR were used, or sometimes 'ITS4-bryo' and 'ITS5-bryo' (Stech, 1999) were used for ITS. Sequencing products were resolved on an ABI3100 automated sequencer.…”

“…Schwägr. (Stech et al, 2011), Radula lindenbergiana Gottsche ex Hartm. (Laenen et al, 2010), Saniona uncinata (Hedw.)…”

Molecular differentiation within European Cratoneuron filicinum, and differences from Asiatic and American populations

“…It has, however, also been suggested that the wide distributions of bryophytes hide significant cryptic species diversity (Mishler and Oliver 2009), and several studies have indeed provided evidence for relatively frequent cryptic speciation among bryophytes (Hedenäs 2009a;Heinrichs et al 2009). Also when cryptic speciation is absent, infraspecific variation with a clear phylogeographic component is common among bryophytes (Hedenäs 2009a;Heinrichs et al 2009;Laenen et al 2010;Stech et al 2011). This shows that the different genotypes are adapted to the local or regional conditions where they occur, there are significant barriers against unhindered spore dispersal between habitats that appear suitable to a species, or that the time has not been sufficient for the species to reach all potential locations.…”