Mosses of the Mediterranean, an annotated checklist - Optima-bot.org

242 R.M. Ros, V. Mazimpaka et al.[325] Hygrohypnum luridum was excluded from Portugal by Sérgio & Carvalho (2003) butit was included in a map published by Oliván et al. (2007). The original materialreported by Henriques from Serra do Bussaco (Machado, 1932) sub Hygrohypnumpalustre has not been found, so the report is better considered as uncertain.Moreover, Allorge (1974) does not have any information about this species fromSerra do Bussaco.[326] Hypopterygium tamarisci was first reported from Portugal by Allorge (1931b). Kruijer(1997) stated that “according to Cecília Sérgio (in litt., 1996) the population ofH. muelleri (= H. tamarisci) is very large and even seems to be extending”. It is stillpresent in the Forest of Bussaco.[327] The following species were excluded from Portugal by Sérgio & Carvalho (2003):Neckera cephalonica, Orthotrichum pumilum, and Tortula protobryoides.[328] Neckera menziesii was collected in a restricted area in Trás-os-Montes by Allorge in1931 (Allorge, 1931a; Allorge & Allorge, 1949). According to Sérgio et al. (2001c) itshould currently be considered extinct.[329] According to Sérgio & Carvalho (2003) the report of Palustriella commutata fromPortugal was only based on a distribution map (without precise a location) byPentecost & Zhaohui (2002). Therefore its occurrence should be considereduncertain.[330] Pohlia bulbifera was reported from a few localities in Portugal (Sérgio & Carvalho,2003) but a study of the corresponding herbarium specimens has shown that theidentifications are probably erroneous. In the latest Red List for the Iberian Peninsula(Sérgio et al., 2007) it is considered vanished from Portugal.[331] Sphagnum centrale was reported from Portugal by Séneca & Daniels (1994) butSéneca & Söderström (2009) excluded it from the country because the report wasbased on a poorly developed specimen from one old collection. The latter authorsalso rejected all the records of S. contortum from Portugal.[332] The following names are based on reports from Sicily without descriptions and theiridentity is unknown: Barbula turgida Sw. nom. nud. and Trichostomum stroblii Jur.nom. nud.[333] Brachytheciastrum trachypodium was reported from Sicily by Zodda (1907b) subBrachythecium payotianum Schimp. ex Boulay but it was subsequently excluded fromthe Sicilian bryoflora following a revision of the herbarium specimen (Zodda, 1913).[334] Bryum salakense Cardot was reported by Lübenau & Lübenau (1968) from the islandof Vulcano, Sicily, sub B. treubii Broth. This Asian species was excluded from theItalian bryoflora by Cortini Pedrotti (1992).[335] Bryum blindii was reported from Sicily by Dia et al. (1987) but it should be excludedfrom the Sicilian bryoflora. This report was based on Bryum bomanssonii Lindb.,which was reported by Zodda (1907b) and latter considered a synonym ofPtychostomum rubens by Crundwell & Nyholm (1964).[336] Dichelyma capillaceum was reported from Sicily by Dia et al. (1987) but it should beexcluded from the Sicilian bryoflora since the report is based on the assumption of anincorrect transcription (Fontinalis capillaris L. instead of Fontinalis capillacea L. exDicks.) by Strobl (1888). The name used by Strobl is not included in any of thetaxonomic reference works consulted. Furthermore, the presence of this species inSicily is phytogeographically unlikely.[337] Dicranella crispa was reported from Sicily by Raimondo & Dia (1981) subAnisothecium vaginale (Dicks. ex With.) Loeske but it was excluded from the Sicilianbryoflora by Cortini Pedrotti (1992) after the herbarium specimen revision.[338] Zodda (1907a) reported “Dicranum palustre (La Pyl.) Br. Eur.” from Sicily. Becausethis name has been used by different authors with different meanings, and the authorscited by Zodda do not correspond exactly with any of the published combinations, it