Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Responsive image
Issue: Vol. 782 No. 2: 29 Oct. 2026
Type: Article
Published: 2026-10-29
DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.782.2.1
Page range: 101-124
Abstract views: 35
PDF downloaded: 2

Morphology and micromorphology: A new look at the intraspecific variation of the Fontinalis antipyretica complex and its taxonomic implications

University of Lodz; Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection; Department of Geobotany and Plant Ecology; Banacha 12/16; 90-237 Łódź; Poland
University of Lodz; Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection; Department of Geobotany and Plant Ecology; Banacha 12/16; 90-237 Łódź; Poland
University of Szczecin; Institute of Biology; Environmental Research Laboratory; Center of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology; Małkocin 37; 73-110 Stargard; Poland
University of Opole; Institute of Biology; Kominka 6/6a; 45-032 Opole; Poland
University of Opole; Institute of Biology; Kominka 6/6a; 45-032 Opole; Poland
Center for Biodiversity and Evolution; The New York Botanical Garden; Bronx; NY 10458-5126; U.S.A.
Bryophytes Fontinalis antipyretica sensu lato intraspecific variation new combinations new species resurrections SEM

Abstract

The taxonomy of the Fontinalis antipyretica complex has long been a subject of debate, with recent molecular studies often suggesting a broad, polymorphic species concept. This study challenges the current consensus by a multidimensional morphometric analysis of the gametophytic and sporophytic micromorphology, supported by the examination of 44 type specimens, and allows a revision of the Fontinalis antipyretica complex. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) demonstrated full congruence, distinguishing nine groups that differ in the range of variation across all analyzed traits: leaf dimensions and leaf cell parameters of their gametophyte. The dendrogram structure revealed a division of specimens into two main groups: those with longer and wider leaves and cells, and specimens with shorter and narrower leaves and leaf cells. Consequently, considering the obtained results and the marked distinctiveness of each analyzed group, the research beyond Fontinalis antipyretica sensu stricto, allowed for the reinstatement to species rank of F. androgyna R.Ruthe, F. bryhnii Limpr., F. cavifolia Warnst. & M. Fleisch., F. gracilis Lindb., F. kindbergii Renauld & Cardot, and F. minor Brid. Furthermore, it enabled the proposal of new combinations—F. cymbifolia (W.E.Nicholson) Wolski comb. nov., and the description of F. larssonii Wolski sp. nov. A crucial complement to the morphometrics proved to be the micromorphology of the sporophytic exostome of the studied specimens. Substantial differences were demonstrated in the ornamentation of the tooth surfaces—ranging from nearly smooth in F. larssonii, through baculate papillae in F. antipyretica, to angular tubercles in F. cymbifolia. The results prove that within the analyzed taxa, cellular parameters combined with peristome ultrastructure provide a stable basis for the discrimination of the studied specimens. Thus, the conducted research not only systematizes our knowledge of the Fontinalis antipyretica complex and enriches it with previously unpublished micromorphological data but also provides an intelligible identification key for the described taxa, offering a practical tool for analyzing the intraspecific variation of Fontinalis antipyretica sensu lato.

References

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
  4. 
  5. 
  6. 
  7. 
  8. 
  9. 
  10. 
  11. 
  12. 
  13. 
  14. 
  15. 
  16. 
  17. 
  18. 
  19. 
  20. 
  21. 
  22. 
  23. Allen, B.H. (1983) On the costa of Fontinalis (Musci). Lindbergia 9: 37–40.
  24. Allen, B.H. (1988) Studies on the genus Fontinalis (Musci: Fontinalaceae). Brittonia 40: 180–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/2807002
  25. Allen, B.H. (1991) A review of the Fontinalis sullivantii complex (Musci: Fontinalaceae). The Bryologist 94: 430–434. https://doi.org/10.2307/3243839
  26. Allen, B.H. (2014) Fontinalis. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (Eds.) Flora of North America North of Mexico, Vol. 28. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, pp. 489–501.
  27. Atwood, J.J. (2015) A taxonomic revision of the moss genus Lepidopilidium (Pilotrichaceae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 100: 263–338. https://doi.org/10.3417/2014021
  28. Brinda, J.C. & Atwood, J.J. (2025) A Synopsis of the Fontinalaceae. The Bryophyte Nomenclator, 29 Oct 2025.
  29. Brotherus, V.F. (1923) Die Laubmoose Fennoskandias. Georg & Co., Helsingfors, 558 pp.
  30. Buck, W.R. (1980) A generic revision of the Entodontaceae. Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 48: 71–159. https://doi.org/10.18968/jhbl.48.0_71
  31. Buck, W.R. (1990) A monograph of Entodon (Entodontaceae) in Australia, eastern Melanesia and southern Oceania. Australian Systematic Botany 3: 701–709. https://doi.org/10.1071/SB9900701
  32. Buck, W.R. & Goffinet, B. (2024) A new checklist of the mosses of the continental United States and Canada. The Bryologist 127: 484–549. https://doi.org/10.1639/0007-2745-127.4.484
  33. Buck, W.R., Cox, C.J., Shaw, A.J. & Goffinet, B. (2005) Ordinal relationships of pleurocarpous mosses, with special emphasis on the Hookeriales. Systematics and Biodiversity 2: 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477200004001410
  34. Cardot, J. (1892) Monographie des Fontinalacées. Mémoires de la Société Nationale des Sciences Naturelles et Mathématiques de Cherbourg 28: 1–152.
  35. Fedosov, V.E., Fedorova, A.V. & Ignatova, E.A. (2022) Integrative taxonomic revision of the genus Campylopus (Leucobryaceae, Bryophyta) in Russia. Arctoa 31: 205–222. https://doi.org/10.15298/arctoa.31.22
  36. Gardiner, A., Ignatov, M.S., Huttunen, S. & Troitsky, A.V. (2005) On the resurrection of the families Pseudoleskeaceae Schimp. and Pylaisiaceae Schimp. (Musci, Hypnales). Taxon 54: 651–663. https://doi.org/10.2307/25065422
  37. Glime, J.M. (1984) Physio-ecological factors relating to reproduction and phenology in Fontinalis dalecarlica. The Bryologist 87: 17–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/3242877
  38. Glime, J.M. (2015) Adventures with stream mosses—A Fontinalis point of view. Part III: Surviving the flow. Evansia 32: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1639/079.032.0103
  39. Hedenäs, L. (2018) Cryptic speciation, habitat differences, and geography interact in a widespread moss species complex. Plant Systematics and Evolution 304: 1131–1143.
  40. Hedenäs, L. & Geissler, P. (1999) Lectotypification of Hedwigian names of mosses. Candollea 54: 517–532.
  41. Hedwig, J. (1801) Species muscorum frondosorum descriptae et tabulis aeneis LXXVII illustratae. Joannis Ambrosii Barthii, Lipsiae, 352 pp. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.26
  42. Hodgetts, N.G., Söderström, L., Blockeel, T.L., Caspari, S., Ignatov, M.S., Konstantinova, N.A., Lockhart, N., Papp, B., Schnyder, N., Schröck, C., Sergio, C., Garcia, C., Porley, R.D., Vieira, C., Areshimashvili, N., Afonina, O.M., Bednarek-Ochyra, H., Bouman, A., Bruggeman-Nannenga, M.A., Brugués, M., Enroth, J., Erzberger, P., Frahm, J.-P., Gabriel, R., Garilleti, R., Gallego, M.T., Górski, P., Hallingbäck, T., Hedenäs, L., Holyoak, D.T., Hugonnot, V., Ignatova, E.A., Kiebacher, T., Kučera, J., Lara, F., Mazimpaka, V., McCarthy, J., Muñoz, J., Sabovljević, M.B., Schmidt, C., Shevock, J.R., Sotiaux, A., Szurdoki, E., Vanderpoorten, A., Van Rooy, J. & Yakupov, G. (2020) An annotated checklist of bryophytes of Europe, Macaronesia and Cyprus. Journal of Bryology 42: 1–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/03736687.2019.1694329
  43. Ignatov, M.S., Ignatova, E.A., Maksimov, A.I. & Chernyadjeva, I.V. (2020) Fontinalis. In: Ignatov, M.S. (Ed.) Flora of Mosses of Russia, Vol. 5. KMK Scientific Press, Moscow, pp. 141–160.
  44. Ignatov, M.S., Maksimov, A.I., Fedorova, A.V. & Ignatova, E.A. (2020a) On the taxonomy of Fontinalis gracilis (Fontinalaceae, Bryophyta) and superficially similar species. Nova Hedwigia Beiheft 150: 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1127/nova-suppl/2020/243
  45. Ignatova, E.A., Fedorova, A.V., Kuznetsova, O.I. & Ignatov, M.S. (2019) Taxonomy of the Plagiothecium laetum complex (Plagiotheciaceae, Bryophyta) in Russia. Arctoa 28: 28–45. https://doi.org/10.15298/arctoa.28.05
  46. Kiebacher, T. & Szövényi, P. (2024) Morphological, genetic and ecological divergence in near-cryptic bryophyte species widespread in the Holarctic: the Dicranum acutifolium complex (Dicranales) revisited in the Alps. Journal of Plant Research 137: 561–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10265-024-01534-3
  47. Latoszewski, M. (2025) Analysis of type materials of the section Lepidophyllae Cardot genus Fontinalis Hedw. BSc thesis, conducted under the supervision of Grzegorz J. Wolski, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Łódź, Łódź, 45 pp.
  48. Magill, R.E. & van Rooy, J. (1998) Flora of Southern Africa. Bryophyta: Part 1 Musci, Fascicle 3: Erpodiaceae—Hookeriaceae. National Botanical Institute, Pretoria, 628 pp.
  49. Milde, J. (1869) Bryologia Silesiaca. Laubmoos-Flora von Nord- und Mittel-Deutschland. Arthur Felix, Leipzig, 410 pp. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.32328
  50. Nyholm, E. (1954) Illustrated moss flora of Fennoscandia. II. Musci, Fascicle 1. CWK Gleerup, Lund, 87 pp.
  51. Ruthe, R. (1872) Bryologische Mittheilungen aus Pommern. Hedwigia 11: 166–171.
  52. Shaw, A.J. (2001) Biogeographic patterns and cryptic speciation in bryophytes. Journal of Biogeography 28: 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2001.00530.x
  53. Smith, A.J.E. (2004) The Moss Flora of Britain and Ireland, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1012 pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541858
  54. Suzuki, T. (2016) A revised new catalog of the mosses of Japan. Hattoria 7: 9–223. https://doi.org/10.18968/hattoria.7.0_9
  55. Turland, N.J., Wiersema, J.H., Barrie, F.R., Greuter, W., Hawksworth, D.L., Herendeen, P.S., Knapp, S., Kusber, W.-H., Li, D.-Z., Marhold, K., May, T.W., McNeill, J., Monro, A.M., Prado, J., Price, M.J. & Smith, G.F. (Eds.) (2025) International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Madrid Code) adopted by the Twentieth International Botanical Congress Madrid, Spain, July 2024. Koeltz Botanical Books, Glashütten.
  56. Welch, W.H. (1960) A Monograph of the Fontinalaceae. Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V., The Hague, 357 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6339-4
  57. Wolski, G.J. (2017) Morphological and anatomical variability of Plagiothecium nemorale in Central Poland. Herzogia 30: 36–50. https://doi.org/10.13158/heia.30.1.2017.36
  58. Wolski, G.J. (2025) The genus Plagiothecium (Plagiotheciaceae) in Europe—current state of knowledge, checklist and key to taxa. PhytoKeys 253: 67–102. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.253.142268
  59. Wolski, G.J. & Nowicka-Krawczyk, P. (2020) Resurrection of the Plagiothecium longisetum Lindb. and proposal of the new species—P. angusticellum. PLoS ONE 15: e0230237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230237
  60. Wolski, G.J. & Polus, K. (2024) Is the endemic species Fontinalis dichelymoides Lindb. not as rare as previously thought in Europe? Herzogia 37: 169–175. https://doi.org/10.13109/herz.2024.37.2.169
  61. Zhu, Y.-Q., Buck, W.R. & Wang, Y.-F. (2010) A revision of Entodon (Entodontaceae) in East Asia. The Bryologist 113: 516–589. https://doi.org/10.1639/0007-2745-113.3.516

How to Cite

Wolski, G.J., Górecki, K., Białecka, B., Rajfur, M., Świsłowski, P. & Buck, W.R. (2026) Morphology and micromorphology: A new look at the intraspecific variation of the Fontinalis antipyretica complex and its taxonomic implications. Phytotaxa 782 (2): 101–124. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.782.2.1