identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03B5E94FFC47C83142F5FC4EFE35F972.text	03B5E94FFC47C83142F5FC4EFE35F972.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sphagnum	<div><p>Genus  Sphagnum L. gen. nov. [order  Sphagnales, family  Sphagnaceae]</p><p>Type species:  Sphagnum palustre L., extant.</p><p>Diagnosis: Single layered laminal cells dimorphous: narrow chlorocysts  form loops embracing hyalocysts forming a regular cell network of which the latter have conspicuous fibrils and often also pores.</p><p>Comment:  Sphagnum (and related genera, recently segregated from  Sphagnum, but similar, so previously placed in this genus), have many features unique for bryophytes in both sporophyte and gametophyte structure. Here we mention only a character which is easy to observe even in a small leaf fragment, and therefore alone is sufficient to refer a specimen to the order  Sphagnopsida . Until recently this order was treated as containing the only genus  Sphagnum, however phylogeny reconstruction (Shaw et al., 2010b) revealed ancient groups, segregated in two families with three genera:  Flatbergiaceae ( Flatbergium), and  Ambuchananiaceae ( Ambuchanania and  Eosphagnum). Two latter genera are characterised by strongly concave, not acuminate and usually blunt branch leaves, very different from our amber specimen.  Flatbergium has completely efibrillose hyalocysts thus not worthy further enumeration of numerous distinctions.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B5E94FFC47C83142F5FC4EFE35F972	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Ignatov, M. S.;Lamkowski, P.;Ignatova, E. A.;Perkovsky, E. E.	Ignatov, M. S., Lamkowski, P., Ignatova, E. A., Perkovsky, E. E. (2019): Mosses from Rovno amber (Ukraine), 4. Sphagnum heinrichsii, a new moss species from Eocene. Arctoa 28 (1): 1-11, DOI: 10.15298/arctoa.28.01, URL: https://doi.org/10.15298/arctoa.28.01
03B5E94FFC47C83842F5F91BFD59F8AA.text	03B5E94FFC47C83842F5F91BFD59F8AA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sphagnum heinrichsii Ignatov & Lamkowski & Ignatova & Perkovsky 2019	<div><p>Sphagnum heinrichsii sp. nov. (Figs. 1–42).</p><p>Holotype: Rovno amber. Late Eocene. SIZK-VT- 88 (Fig. 1) [original piece of amber SIZK-VT-115 was cut into three parts, two containing parts of the  Sphagnum plant(s): VT-88 (Figs. 1-35) and VT-88A (Figs. 36 с42) [scheme of their connection is in Fig. 3].</p><p>Etymology: In honour of Jochen Heinrichs (1969- 2018), outstanding German bryologist and paleobotanist.</p><p>Description: Stem longer than 1 cm, sparsely branched, with branches separated at ca. 2 mm one from another, branches single or in fascicles of two, one being much smaller than another. The bigger branches spreading from stem at right angles, as well as one branch (B 7 in Fig. 1) with considerably smaller leaves. Stem leaf (only one observed) small, lingulate, appressed, 0.7×0.3 mm; distal margin likely irregularly broken; hyalocysts of proximal to middle part broad, ca. 140×70 µm, towards margin and above elongated, to ca. 150–200× 50– 70 µm, on dorsal side with numerous imperfect pores (with clear outline but without true perforation) along commissures 17–23 µm in diameter, separated one from another by 5–10 µm, arranged in regular rows, occasionally with few similar pores along convex hyalocyst median part; perfect (with perforation) pores few, more numerous towards apex; chlorocysts exposed to dorsal surface as narrow strips ca. 5 µm close to leaf base among especially broad cells. Branch leaves on long branches apparently arranged in rows, up to 3.0×0.7 mm, narrow lanceolate, gradually tapered to apex, flat to concave near base; hyalocysts 200–280×25–30 µm, fibrils numerous at 15–20 µm from each other (in both large leaves and in leaf only 1 mm long); pores only in few cells, mostly in distal hyalocyst corners, more rarely also in proximal corners, occasionally in other parts of leaves (some cells near base of concave leaf part with large pores along whole cell); in middle leaf part mostly imperfect pores occur and in distal parts of leaves from pendent branches cells are almost undifferentiated into chlorocysts and hyalocysts; border of longer cells not apparent, although cells close to margin in proximal part of leaf somewhat narrower; leaves from small branches are only 200 µm long; leaves in proximal part of branch 0.5 mm long, its hyalocysts distally with some pores of quite small size, &lt;5 µm.</p><p>Material: The piece of amber was cut into two unequal parts (before initial study). The  Sphagnum specimen appeared mostly in a thinner slice, where its stem comes in from rough face, and then curved, lying parallel to the cutting. The stem is surrounded by amber metamorphosis along most length of the stem: it covers the stem surface so only one stem leaf (SL in Figs. 1, 3, 30–35) is available for study (ca. 0.5 mm below there is probably another one, but it is only slightly visible by its end and not allowing to understand any details). Several branches appear to be closer to the cut and polished face, allowing clear view of branches and a single stem leaf. The polarity of stem is not evident per se. We interpret it as shown in Fig. 3 mostly considering two types of evidence: (1) concave stem leaf orientation; although we are aware of a not rare stem leaf downwards orientation in  Sphagnum, it is unlikely that adaxial surface of small-sized stem leaf can be strongly convex as in Figs. 30–32; (2) branch assumed as pendent, B 6 (Fig. 3), due to especially long, narrow and flexuose branch leaves, is likely directed downwards (as all pendent branches), despite during the fossilization its direction might be changed to unnatural direction. However, the coincidence of both of these facts justify our interpretation as the most probable.</p><p>The whole appearance of the plant, its coverage by debris and numerous diatoms indicates it grew submerged in water. Such environments sometimes result in a reduction in branching, so their single arrangement is unusual, but not totally exceptional. The bases of branches B 1 and B 7 are clearly visible, thus their solitary position is evident. Branch B 2 is likely also solitary, although the position of branches B 3, B 4 and B 5 (B 5 is questionable whether this is branch however) are not clear enough to state anything definite about branch arrangement. The B 3 and B 4 (Figs. 3, 36) is the only case were a pair of two branches, apparently adjoining each other, is seen. We can not exclude that B 3 and B 4 can not be considered as one fascicle with B 2, and maybe B 5. Also B 6 base is not seen and one can not exclude its close position to B 7; however, these cases are much more hypothetical.</p><p>Three branches, B 1, B 2, and B 3, are characterized by the largest and densely arranged leaves, and their position at about a right angle from the stem indicate that they are spreading. Uppermost branch leaves of them are not available for study, but all three leaves in lower few millimeters are appressed and rather flat, and only on B 2 at ca. 5 mm from branch base the leaves are more loose, with concave bases (Figs. 4–7).</p><p>Branch B 6 is seen partly, without its basal part, but its orientation is pendent, and uppermost leaves are narrow and flexuose; i.e., similar to pendent branches. Shoot B 6a is difficult to interpret: it could be either a terminal continuation of B 6, or a separate branch similar to B 7, but fallen off and retained close to the mother plant. Leaves of B 6a are very similar in shape and size to B 7.</p><p>Stem leaf (Figs. 30–35) is partly emerging above alveolar medium surrounding stem. However, what is possible to see through this rather transparent amber, is its basal part and an indefinite part is its distal edge, which likely consists of partly decomposed cells. Micrographs with more intensive transmitted light show numerous pores (e.g. Fig. 35); however, in reflected light it is seen that they are mostly imperfect pores (Figs. 30, 32).</p><p>In branch leaves (e.g. Fig. 23) imperfect pores are also much more common than true window pores, which are more numerous only in concave leaf bases (Figs. 5–7).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B5E94FFC47C83842F5F91BFD59F8AA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Ignatov, M. S.;Lamkowski, P.;Ignatova, E. A.;Perkovsky, E. E.	Ignatov, M. S., Lamkowski, P., Ignatova, E. A., Perkovsky, E. E. (2019): Mosses from Rovno amber (Ukraine), 4. Sphagnum heinrichsii, a new moss species from Eocene. Arctoa 28 (1): 1-11, DOI: 10.15298/arctoa.28.01, URL: https://doi.org/10.15298/arctoa.28.01
