Solenostoma costaricanum

Váňa, Jiří, Söderström, Lars, Hagborg, Anders & Konrat, Matt Von, 2013, Notes on Early Land Plants Today. 44. Comments on sexuality in Solenostoma (Solenostomataceae, Marchantiophyta) and on some newly described taxa, Phytotaxa 152 (1), pp. 33-47 : 40-41

publication ID 10.11646/phytotaxa.152.1.3

persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Solenostoma costaricanum


Solenostoma costaricanum

Some years ago, at a visit to the NY herbarium, the senior author studied the specimen and identified it as Jungermannia amoena (now Solenostoma amoenum ). The sentence in Bakalin (2013: 129) “The specimen was identified as Jungermannia (Solenostoma) amoena Lindenb. & Gottsche …” concerns this determination. Bakalin disagrees with this determination and described and figured a new species, Solenostoma costaricanum , on the basis of this specimen. He compared it with Solenostoma crassulum ( Nees & Montagne 1836: 54) Stephani (1901: 497) and Solenostoma amoenum . The comparison with Solenostoma crassulum does not deserve any comments since that the observations are correct but the two taxa are not closely related. There are more differences between them that is not mentioned by Bakalin. Concerning the differences from Solenostoma amoenum Bakalin’s descriptions are quoted below, followed by our comments: a) “androecia in 3–4 pairs (vs. 6–12)”. The difference is based on the description by Váňa (1974a: 189). But the number of male bracts is not fully constant, in the time of the writing of the description the senior author saw only optimally developed specimens with 6–12 pairs and specimens studied later showed that the variability of this character is wider. b) “sometimes a shortly beaked perianth mouth (vs. rounded, not beaked)”, but in the description the author wrote “commonly very weakly beaked or not beaked mouth”. Also the character is very variable and of no taxonomic significance. c) “flaccid shoots (vs. rigid)”. Again only ecological adaptation of no taxonomic value. d) “absence of a perigynium (vs. common presence)” compare again the description by Váňa (1974a: 183): “Perigynium vorhanden oder fehlt” [perigynium present or missing].

As an addition it should be mentioned that the drawing is not instructive and not fully corresponding with the description, e.g. “leaves… transversely elliptic to reniform”, “leaf cells … along margin … thin-walled, with thin- to slightly thickened external wall…”. All characters of this specimen fall within the variability of Solenostoma amoenum .

Solenostoma amoenum (Lindenb. et Gottsche) R.M.Schust. ex Váňa, Hentschel et Heinrichs, Cryptog. Bryol. 31:136, 2010 (Váňa et al. 2010). Basionym: Jungermannia amoena Lindenb. et Gottsche, Syn. Hepat. 5: 674, 1847 ( Gottsche et al. 1847). Type: MEXICO. Oaxaca: Talea, 5000’, 1842 Liebmann, Pl. mex .10434 (Pl. mexic. Liebmann 250a) (lectotype: C!, isotypes S!, W-Lindenb. Hep. 1732!)

= Solenostoma costaricanum Bakalin, Polish J. Bot. 58: 128 ( Bakalin 2013), syn. nov. Type: COSTA RICA. Alajuela: Calera de San Ramon , 29 January 1934, A. M. Brenes 19033 (holotype NY 636521!).














Solenostoma costaricanum

Váňa, Jiří, Söderström, Lars, Hagborg, Anders & Konrat, Matt Von 2013

Solenostoma costaricanum Bakalin, Polish J. Bot.

Bakalin 2013: 128
Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF