Lichen communities in the British Isles: A preliminary conspectus

More documents

Recommendations

Info

296 P. W. Jante"^, D. L. Ilawhsworth and ],'. Rose B. Iixposed Lecideion tumid.ae C. D. P s eud et e r nio tt. fu r.fitr ac c ae Rhi:ocurpion alTirolae . LI mbi li c a r io n c y hit d r i c a e Nr-rtrient-en riched Parmelion conspersae X antltorion p ari e t inae Nlir.reral-rich . A c ar o s p o r t)o n s ino pt| c a e E. Marine arrcl Nlaritime Corrrrnunities F. Aquatic Comrnur.rities \lII. Terricolous (,'ommunities A, Pcbbles B. Ilasic soils C. Coastal soils and dunes D. Acid soils and peat \rIII. Sun-rnrary Note on the Relevi Tables Acknorvledgements References I. Introduction 370 370 371 372 374 3 7rJ 3 7fl 3 rJZ .r u2 3li2 3rJ4 389 3 9.1 3()+ l(r- 400 +0) +07 40,\ 408 40e compared with investigations into the systematics and gcograPhicrl distribution of lichens r,vithin the British Islcs, the study of thc itrtrctr,r. ancl comp
298 P. W. James, D. L. Hazlhswortlt and F. Rose cannot be accommodated u'ithin particular units (although the majoritv gcnerally can be), and may be intermediatc betu'een one or morc (u'hcthcr they arc definccl numerically or by phytosociological methocls). Phytosociology, in our opinion, should aim to dctermine those major nocla in the continuum of plant communities which arc related to clearly recognizablc ecological ancl environmental parametcrs, rather than to fit all stancis encountered into a rigid system of too strictly defined associations. In most investigations, phytosociologically dcfined noda are derivecl cssentially by floristic ancl intuitive methods, but rroda can also be rccognizccl as a result of numcrical analyses of data obtained from ranclornizccl sarnpling techniques. '1'he relative merits of thcse approaches have alrcacly bcen the subject of considerable debate, but only recently has a cornparisorr been made between intuitive phytosociological and a number of numcrical approaches (Frenkel and Harrison, 1974).'Ihese authors fbund that thc intuitive phytosociological method was extremely valuable for the rapicl reconnaissance and establishment of basic groupings, particularly in terms of the man-hours expended, although a combination of both methods was likely to prove more useful than either on its own in thc production of an entirely comprehensive system. In the case of lichen communities, the dcsign of a randomized sampling technique or programme u'hich tvill lead to the detection of the rnajor noda presents special problems, mainly unsolved as yet, on account of the large number of variables involved alTecting the communities. Iior this reason, intuitive methods of sampling are currently the most satisfactorl' means of detecting the diversity of the lichen communities in an area. A. Nomenclqture* Accepting that the subjective, or intuitive, method is a valid one for thc recognition of major noda, the question then arises as to u'hether suclr noda should be provided u'ith latinized names and ordered in a hierarchical system. 'fhe provision of a latinized name enables (or should enable) the concept of a particular community to be readily communicated ancl names emproyed in this chapter. :?,t;: ational rnomic 10. Lichen Communities in the British [sles 299 disctrssecl in the literaturc;for reasons of precision such narnes require author citations and rules to control their validity and application. Although somcwhat complex systems of rules have been proposed (e.g. Meijcr-Drees, 19-53; see Hau,ksworth, 1974), no internationally accepted codc comparable to the Intcrnational Code of Botanical Nomenclature is cr.rrrcntly available. Thus, cven within Europe, variations in the proceclures followed in naming plant communities exist. One of the most important of these frorn thc point of view of the stabilization of narnes is thc practicc of changing the names of phytosociological units as the names of thc species utilized in thosc units are changed; Laundon (1967) did not do this, for example, rlhile somc authors have, and yet thcy have left author citations for the syntaxon unchanged (e.g. Kalb, 1970; !\;irth, 1972). Othcr problems arise rvhen authors adopt latinized names based on releve c.lata in earlier works where the original authors not only did not coin latinized names, but also gave no indication that they considered their communities of syntaxonomic value, as in Klement's (1955) treatment of Almborn's (1948) "communitics". In our view, a closer correspondence between the procedures of syntaxonomy and the rules of ic'liotaxonomy (namely the International Code of lJotanical Nomenclaturc, Sta{1eu et al., 1972) is requirecl ancl to this end ,uvc have endeavoured to apply the following criteria in this chapter. In a ferv cases (see p. 353) the nomenclatural situations are so complex that r,r'e have preferred to follow' continental usage e\/en whcre this is almost certainly contrary to the vicws expressed below; it rnay be that a case coulcl bc made for the conserva,tion of some extremely well established namcs of syntaxa. 1. Names in all languages are accepted and latinized 1>rooided that their authors accorded thern a phytosociological rqnh. T'hus, tables of records to shou. taxa associated rvith a species in autecological studies are rejected ancl Sl'ntara referred to by their authorS aS t'communities", "noda" etc., are omitted unless the original author latinized them (i.e. implied they hacl phytosociological rank). Under this rule thc "comrnunities" of Almborn (1948) and the "noda" of Rose ancl Jarnes (197+) are thus considcrcd invalid. 2. In cases where courrnunity namcs zol fulfilling criterion (1) above have been taken up later and attributed to the earlier author either alone or as a "combination", such names are treated as ne\\/ ancl attributed to the latcr author alone. 3. ]r4'here the name of a syntaxon fulfilling criterion (1) and based on t$'o or more specific narnes is contracted by a later author, it is treated as a nc\\' name and attributcd t
Page 1: TO PETER W. IAMES, DAVID ANd FRANCI
Page 5 and 6: 302 1,. W. -lamcs, I). L. l[azpl
Page 7 and 8: 30(r P. W. )fames, D.L. llawluzport
Page 9 and 10: Tesru I.x Lecanactidetum premneae a
Page 11 and 12: Species C an del ariel I a oit e ll
Page 13 and 14: 316 P. ILt. James, D. L" Hawhsworth
Page 15 and 16: 320 P. l4/. James, D. L. Hau:hsztor
Page 17 and 18: 32+ P. W. James, D. L. Hazuhsworth
Page 19 and 20: Frc. 4. Parmelietum laez;igatae on
Page 21 and 22: 334 P. W. Jam.es, D. L. Hawhsusorth
Page 23 and 24: 338 P. II/. James, D. L. Llawhsuort
Page 25 and 26: 3+2 P. W. James, D. L. Hazahszoorth
Page 27 and 28: Species Tasrn VI. Tesrn Yl-continue
Page 29 and 30: 350 P. W. James, D. L. Hawksworth a
Page 31 and 32: .\ i =- {: ..-. !: O o- 4l 6: c: c^
Page 33 and 34: 3s8 P. W. James, D. L. Hawksworth a
Page 35 and 36: 362 P. W. James, D. L. Hawksuorth a
Page 37 and 38: 366 P. W. James, D. L. Hawhsworth a
Page 39 and 40: 370 P. W. ./ames, D. L. Hawhsworth
Page 41 and 42: 37+ P. W. James, D. L. Hauthsworth
Page 43 and 44: 378 P. IA. James, D. L. Hawksworth
Page 45 and 46: 382 P. W. James, D. L. Hawhszaorth
Page 47 and 48: 386 P. W. James, D. L. Hawksworth a
Page 49 and 50: 390 P. W. James, D. L. Hauhszoorth
Page 51 and 52: 39+ P. W. James, D. L. Hawksworth a
Page 53 and 54:
398 P. W. James, D. L. Hawhsworth a
Page 55 and 56:
402 P. II'. ./ames, D. L. Hazohsz.o
Page 57 and 58:
406 P. W. James, D. L. Hazohszoorth
Page 59 and 60:
410 P. W. Ja.mes, D. L. Hautksworth
show all

Lichen communities in the British Isles: A preliminary conspectus

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?