identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
D85C3C5EFF99B455FF0BF8C13BD6FE91.text	D85C3C5EFF99B455FF0BF8C13BD6FE91.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Campylopus introflexus (Hedw.) Brid., Muscol. Recent. Suppl.	<div><p>Campylopus introflexus (Hedw.) Brid., Muscol. Recent. Suppl. 4: 72. 1819 [1818]. – Dicranum introflexum Hedw., Sp. Musc. Frond. 147. 29 f. 1–7. 1801.</p><p>This species was found in Russia for the first time in Kaliningrad Province by Razgulyaeva et al. (2001) who described and illustrated these specimens; it was also discussed by Dolnik &amp; Napreenko (2007). It is currently known from three localities on Kuronian Spit. Although the climate warming promoted a remarkable range extention of several western species eastwards, no additional reports of this invasive species from Russia have appeared since that time, so we do not consid- er it here in more details.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D85C3C5EFF99B455FF0BF8C13BD6FE91	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	Fedosov, V. E.;Fedorova, A. V.;Ignatova, E. I.	Fedosov, V. E., Fedorova, A. V., Ignatova, E. I. (2022): Integrative taxonomic revision of the genus Campylopus (Leucobryaceae, Bryophyta) in Russia. Arctoa 31 (2): 205-222, DOI: 10.15298/arctoa.31.22, URL: https://doi.org/10.15298/arctoa.31.22
D85C3C5EFF98B455FCDFFC713E70FABF.text	D85C3C5EFF98B455FCDFFC713E70FABF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Campylopus flexuosus (Hedw.) Brid.	<div><p>Campylopus flexuosus (Hedw.) Brid., (Hedw.) Brid., Muscol. Recent. Suppl. 4: 71. 1819 [1818]. – Dicranum flexuosum Hedw., Sp. Musc. Frond. 145. 38 f. 1–4. 1801.</p><p>This species was mentioned to occur in the Kaliningrad Province of Russia by Ignatov et al. (2006) based on the data by Napreenko (unpublished). Actually, this species was recorded by Gross (1914) from wetlands around the raised bog on the Kuronian spit, but it was not collected later (Dolnik &amp; Napreenko, 2007). World distribution of this species resembles that of C. fragilis; it can occur in Kaliningrad Province of Russia. An easternmost European locality of C. flexuosus is in Poland (Hodgetts &amp; Lochart, 2020).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D85C3C5EFF98B455FCDFFC713E70FABF	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	Fedosov, V. E.;Fedorova, A. V.;Ignatova, E. I.	Fedosov, V. E., Fedorova, A. V., Ignatova, E. I. (2022): Integrative taxonomic revision of the genus Campylopus (Leucobryaceae, Bryophyta) in Russia. Arctoa 31 (2): 205-222, DOI: 10.15298/arctoa.31.22, URL: https://doi.org/10.15298/arctoa.31.22
D85C3C5EFF98B455FF55FCE539E0FC78.text	D85C3C5EFF98B455FF55FCE539E0FC78.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Campylopus fragilis (Brid.) Bruch & Schimp., Bryol. Eur.	<div><p>Campylopus fragilis (Brid.) Bruch &amp; Schimp., Bryol. Eur. 1: 164 (fasc. 41. Monogr. 4). 1847. — Dicranum fragile Brid., J. Bot. (Schrader) 1800 (2): 296. 1801. Fig. 4.</p><p>Plants in loose tufts, green above, yellowish below. Stems 0.5–1 cm, simple, densely foliate. Leaves 4– 5× 0.45–0.55 mm, ovate-lanceolate, widest at1/4 of their length and shallowly narrowed toward insertion, narrowed into long, concolorous subula; costa filling 1/2– 2/3 of leaf width, short excurrent, slightly serrate at tip, in transverse section with very high ventral hyalocysts, filling half of the costa height, guide cells and dorsal stereids, regularly ribbed on dorsal surface due to protruding cells; distal and median laminal cells 10–28×5– 10 µm, quadrate or rhomboidal, thick-walled, sharply differentiated from hyaline, translucent rectangular basal laminal cells; basal laminal cells 50–90(–160)×13–20 µm; alar cells not differentiated, basal marginal cells narrower, in transition zone form rather well differentiated border. Specialized asexual reproduction and sporophytes unknown in Russia.</p><p>Differetiation. Campylopus fragilis differs from most other Russian species of the genus in possessing well developed stereids in transverse section of the costa. Although as much as five species in the key above have this trait, D. fragilis is distinguished from most of them by the lack of hyaline hair point, lack of ventral stereids and leaves widest well above the insertion. According to Ignatov et al. (2006), in Russia C. fragilis occurs in the Caucasus, southern Siberia and the southern part of Far East. However, most specimens referred to this species were reidentified as C. schimperi or C. subulatus, excepting the specimen from Kabardino-Balkaria, which suits well to S. fragilis morphologically and which identity was proved by DNA sequencing. Among the other characteristic traits of C. fragilis, asexual reproduction by small leaves in upper leaf axils was not seen in the specimen from Russia. The transverse section of costa in this species shows very high adaxial hyalocysts, occupying ca. half of its height.</p><p>Distribution and ecology. Campylopus fragilis has a wide, disjunctive distribution in the areas with rather warm oceanic climate, which, however, might need a revision. In Holarctic it occurs throughout Western and Central Europe, UK and Macaronesia, southern part of Scandinavia, but do not occur or is very rare in East Europe and xeric Mediterranean areas. According to Frahm (2007), in North America it occurs only in two areas: British Columbia in Canada, and Arkansas in the USA. A single Russian collection from the Caucasus is the easternmost in Europe (Fig. 9); the species might be expect- ed also in warm and wet coastal areas of the Black Sea around Sochi and also in Teberda Nature Park (Karachaevo-Cherkessia), but has not been so far revealed there despite the extensive moss collecting in both areas.</p><p>Specimens examined: RUSSIA: Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria, Bezengi Mountain area, Cherek Bezengiysky River valley 1 km upstream Dumala Creek mouth, ca. 1650 m alt., 31 Aug 2004, Ignatov, Ignatova &amp; Kharzinov s.n. (MHA9011782) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D85C3C5EFF98B455FF55FCE539E0FC78	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	Fedosov, V. E.;Fedorova, A. V.;Ignatova, E. I.	Fedosov, V. E., Fedorova, A. V., Ignatova, E. I. (2022): Integrative taxonomic revision of the genus Campylopus (Leucobryaceae, Bryophyta) in Russia. Arctoa 31 (2): 205-222, DOI: 10.15298/arctoa.31.22, URL: https://doi.org/10.15298/arctoa.31.22
D85C3C5EFF98B455FF55FED03B16FC9E.text	D85C3C5EFF98B455FF55FED03B16FC9E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Campylopus umbellatus (Arn.) Paris 1894	<div><p>Campylopus umbellatus (Arn.) Paris, (Arn.) Paris, Index Bryol. 264. 1894. – Thysanomitrion umbellatum Arn., Disp. Méth. Mousses 34. 1825.</p><p>This tropical species was revealed in Russia in three localities on thermal fields in the south of Kamchatka, in Pauzhetka settlement surroundings (Ignatova &amp; Samkova, 2006); these specimens were described and illustrated in this paper, so we do not consider this species here in more details, except the note that our DNA data confirm the species identification, at least, our sequences of nuclear ITS region form a clade with GenBank sequence AF444130 assigned to C. umbellatus and our trn SF sequences form a clade with the GenBank sequences AF226764 (rps 4) and AF231171, assigned to the same species .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D85C3C5EFF98B455FF55FED03B16FC9E	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	Fedosov, V. E.;Fedorova, A. V.;Ignatova, E. I.	Fedosov, V. E., Fedorova, A. V., Ignatova, E. I. (2022): Integrative taxonomic revision of the genus Campylopus (Leucobryaceae, Bryophyta) in Russia. Arctoa 31 (2): 205-222, DOI: 10.15298/arctoa.31.22, URL: https://doi.org/10.15298/arctoa.31.22
D85C3C5EFF98B457FCDFFAC6397BF939.text	D85C3C5EFF98B457FCDFFAC6397BF939.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Campylopus gracilis (Mitt.) A. Jaeger, Ber. Thätigk. St. Gallischen Naturwiss. Ges. 1870	<div><p>Campylopus gracilis (Mitt.) A. Jaeger, Ber. Thätigk. St. Gallischen Naturwiss. Ges. 1870 –71: 427 (Gen. Sp. Musc. 1: 131). 1872. — Dicranum gracile Mitt., J. Proc. Linn. Soc., Bot., Suppl. 1: 17. 1859. Fig. 5</p><p>Plants in loose tufts, light green, glossy. Stems 1–2 cm, forked. Leaves (4–)5–7× 0.35–0.5 mm, erect when wet, appressed when dry, narrowly lanceolate, ending in a very long, slightly flexuose, concolorous, serrate subula; costa very broad, occupying 3/4–4/5 of leaf width, long-excurrent, in transverse section with ventral hyalocysts of the same size as following guide cells and somewhat smaller substereids forming massive band on a dorsal side, with dorsal surface ribbed due to protruding cells; distal and median laminal cells 20–37×6–8 µm, rectangular or elongate-rhomboidal, with oblique transverse walls, basal laminal cells 30–55×8–15 µm, rectangular, hyaline and translucent, along margins well differentiat- ed, narrower, forming a border extending to mid-leaf; alar cells sharply hyaline, thin-walled, forming inflated</p><p>The genus Campylopus in Russia 215 group, projecting into the costa; basal laminal cells hyaline, thin-walled, long-rectangular. Specialized asexual reproduction unknown. Sporophytes not seen in collections from Russia.</p><p>B 5 mm A C D E 100 µm 1 mm F G H I</p><p>Differentiation. In having combination of a very broad costa bearing substereids with longitudinal ribs on dorsal side and short cells in upper portion of the leaf lamina, C. gracilis can resemble the only one another Rus-</p><p>5</p><p>sian Campylopus, C. subulatus . Although in most manuals C. subulatus is treated as having costa that occupies a half of the leaf base width, this character is very variable, and plants with broader costae may occur; moreover, basal laminal cells in C. subulatus usually are hyaline, not forming well delimited, inflated alar groups, but, according to Frahm &amp; Vitt (1978), this species possesses well-differentiated group, composed of reddishbrown, inflated alar cell. However, a combination of very wide costa and inflated hyaline alar group projecting into the costa occurs only in C. gracilis . One more remarkable trait of this species is a rather well differentiated narrow cells, forming a border in a basal leaf portion.</p><p>Distribution and ecology. Campylopus gracilis is an oceanic species with a disjunctive distribution, largely associated with western coasts of Eurasia (UK, south-western part of Norway, the Alps) and North America (British Columbia). In addition, this species occurs in Asia: in China and neighbouring areas of Sino-Himalayan Region within Nepal, India, Myanmar and Thailand. A single Russian collection originates from the middle part of Khabarovsk Territory (Fig. 9), where the species was found in subalpine belt at elevation of about 1500 m, on humus in cliff crevice (for details see Pisarenko et al., 2022). DNA-barcoding supports an identification based on morphology, although an Asian specimen has somewhat different sequences from the European ones.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D85C3C5EFF98B457FCDFFAC6397BF939	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	Fedosov, V. E.;Fedorova, A. V.;Ignatova, E. I.	Fedosov, V. E., Fedorova, A. V., Ignatova, E. I. (2022): Integrative taxonomic revision of the genus Campylopus (Leucobryaceae, Bryophyta) in Russia. Arctoa 31 (2): 205-222, DOI: 10.15298/arctoa.31.22, URL: https://doi.org/10.15298/arctoa.31.22
D85C3C5EFF9FB452FF0BFBF93F3CF91B.text	D85C3C5EFF9FB452FF0BFBF93F3CF91B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Campylopus pyriformis (Schultz) Brid., Bryol. Univ.	<div><p>Campylopus pyriformis (Schultz) Brid., Bryol. Univ. 1: 471. 1826. — Dicranum pyriforme Schultz, Prodr. Fl. Starg. Suppl. 73. 1819. Fig. 7</p><p>Plants in loose tufts, light to bright green. Stems 0.2– 2.5 cm, simple or forked. Leaves 3–4× 0.3–0.45 mm, erect-spreading, slightly contorted to flexuose when dry, occasionally falcate, from lanceolate base gradually narrowed into a long concolorous, canaliculate subula with few blunt teeth near apex; costa filling 1/3–1/2 of leaf width, excurrent, in transverse section with large ventral hyalocysts, guide cells and rather small and lax group of substereids on dorsal side, smooth or nearly so on dorsal surface; distal and median laminal cells 15–25×7–9 µm, thick-walled, elongate-rectangular; basal laminal cells 45–65×8–15 µm, translucent, thin-walled, quadrate to rectangular, along margins in 2–3 rows narrower, alar cells not differentiated. Specialized asexual reproduction absent. Sporophytes unknown in Russia.</p><p>Differentiation. Campylopus pyriformis differs from other Campylopus species in Russian flora in having combination of substereids rather than stereids on transverse section of costa, not differentiated alar groups, and concolorous, short-quadrate basal cells of leaf lamina. In addition, C. pyriformis has smooth dorsal surface of costa – the trait shared with only one species, C. schimperi . From the later species C. pyriformis differs in growth in loose, not tomentose tufts (vs. very dense, tomentose) and concolorous basal leaf portion. Due to having leaves with the costae smooth on dorsal side, C. pyriformis may be confused with representatives of several other Dicranoid mosses.</p><p>Campylopus pyriformis is a very polymorphic species, so the traits useful for its identification in several areas do not work in the other ones. For instance, both Europen and North American plants of C. pyriformis have leaves with very long, subulate acumina, which is not neccessary the case of plants from Kamchatka. At the same time, the molecular data proved that the plants from southern Kamchatka represent C. pyriformis s.l. Except Kamchatka, this species was reported from Kaliningrad Province (Ignatov et al., 2006, Dolnik &amp; Napreenko, 2007) and Iturup Island (Bakalin et al., 2019). Although Dolnik &amp; Napreenko (2007) noticed C. pyriformis as a common species on sandy dunes of Kuronian Spit, no specimens are available from that area for checking. Report of the species from Iturup Island (Bakalin et al., 2019) is based on misidentification of Dicranella cf. heteromalla, which resembles C. pyriformis in having leaves with very wide costae, guide cells opening on the ventral side of the costa, smooth dorsal surface of costa and concolorous, short rectangular laminal cells at leaf base. To differentiate such Dicranella specimens from Campylopus, transverse sections of costa in middle portion of leaf should be checked. In Campylopus, hyalocysts form ventral surface of costa throughout its length, while in Dicranella leaf cross section in the middle part of leaf shows ventral stereids and ventral epidermis.</p><p>Distribution and ecology. Broadly circumscribed, C. pyriformis has a worldwide distribution with most records concentrated in Europe and in moderate climate of south hemisphere. Few currently known North American populations are considered as a result of rather recent dispersal from South America. The species was also reported from several provinces of China, including Jilin in north-east of the country close to the Russian border. According to Frahm (2007), C. pyriformis usually grows on eroded soil, including acidic sand; however, specimens from Kamchatka Peninsula available for our study originated from the thermal fields of southern Kamchatka (Fig. 9), where it grew together with C. atrovirens, C. subulatus and C. umbellatus (Ignatova &amp; Samkova, 2006) .</p><p>Specimens examined: RUSSIA: Kamchatsky Territory: Ust’-Bol’sheretsky Distr., vicinity of Pauzhetka settl., eastern Pauzhetskoe thermal field, Samkova 9-10 (MW9027886, MW9027888) (with C. umbellatus); the same area, ca. 500 m southward Pauzhetskaya geothermal powerplant, upper thermal field, 01.VIII.2006 Samkova #13-4 (MW9027887) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D85C3C5EFF9FB452FF0BFBF93F3CF91B	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	Fedosov, V. E.;Fedorova, A. V.;Ignatova, E. I.	Fedosov, V. E., Fedorova, A. V., Ignatova, E. I. (2022): Integrative taxonomic revision of the genus Campylopus (Leucobryaceae, Bryophyta) in Russia. Arctoa 31 (2): 205-222, DOI: 10.15298/arctoa.31.22, URL: https://doi.org/10.15298/arctoa.31.22
D85C3C5EFF9FB44CFCF5F96C3E1FFBFE.text	D85C3C5EFF9FB44CFCF5F96C3E1FFBFE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Campylopus subulatus Milde, Bot. Zeitung	<div><p>Campylopus subulatus Schimp. ex Milde, Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 20: 460. 1862. Fig. 8</p><p>Plants in loose tufts, light green, not tomentose. Stems 1–3.5 cm, simple or furcate. Leaves 2.5–4× 0.3–0.4 mm, appressed when dry, erect-spreading when wet, from lanceolate base narrowed into a long, straight subula; margins entire or bluntly serrulate below, serrate at apex; costa filling 1/2–2/3 of leaf base width, excurrent in a short concolorous mucro, in transverse section with ventral hyalocysts, guide cells which are only slightly larger than substereids, the latter in 2–3 layers on dorsal side, dorsal surface of costa strongly ribbed due to longitudinual rows of projecting cells; distal and median laminal cells 12–15×5–8 µm, thick-walled, subquadrate, rounded-rectangular or rhomboidal; basal laminal cells 30– 50×8–13 µm, narrow rectangular, slightly narrower along margins, thin-walled, hyaline and translucent, alar cells shorter and wider, not or slightly inflated, sometimes brownish. Specialized asexual reproduction unknown in Russia. Setae 1–1.3 cm. Capsules slightly inclined, ca. 0.8 mm long, ovate, slightly asymmetric, estrumose, weakly longitudinally sulcate. Operculum long rostrate, beak ca. 0.8 mm long.</p><p>Differentiation. Campylopus subuatus differs from the other species of the genus reported from Russia in having a combination of substereids filling the dorsal side of costa, ribbed dorsal surface of costa, short cells in upper portion of leaf lamina, narrow costa, and scarcely differentiated alar cells. Actually, alar groups in C. subulatus are usually better differentiated than in C. schimperi and may be inflated (moreover, they are usually inflated according to Frahm &amp; Vitt, 1978); however, com- The genus Campylopus in Russia 221 paring with C. gracilis, they are weaker delimited and never project into costa. Unlike C. schimperi, alar groups in C. subulatus often have red-brownish coloration. Differentiation of the later two species often may be tricky, and many specimens which represent C. schimperi were originally identified as C. subulatus . One of possible sources of such mistakes is that in Asian populations, which were proved by molecular data to represent C. schimperi, the dorsal surface of costa is often remarkably ribbed. For the distinction of these two species see Frahm &amp; Vitt (1972) and comment to C. schimperi .</p><p>Distribution and ecology. Campylopus subulatus is widespread in Europe, where it occurs throughout UK, in south-western parts of Norway and Sweden, in Central and Western Europe, however, avoiding Mediterranean regions and Eastern Europe, like most other Campylopus species do. After molecular phylogenetic study and further revision of herbaria, it turns out that C. subulatus, which was reported from many areas of Russia, actually is known only from four localities in the Russian Far East (Fig. 9), while all other records should be referred to C. schimperi . Two known collections of C. subulatus originate from Primorsky Territory, where the species occurs on the seashore in Olginsky and Khasansky Districts. In Kamchatka it is from the thermal fields of Pauzhetka and in Kronotzky State Reserve.</p><p>Specimens examined: Primorsky Territory: Olga Distr., Timofeevka settlement surroundings, the coastal area of Vladimira Bay (ca. 30 m alt.), on disturbed sandy soil in moist meadow (in abandoned wheel tracks), 28 Aug 2016, Fedosov &amp; Pisarenko (MW9090384, 9115372, MHA, LE) ; Khasansky Distr., Ryazanovka near the field station of DVGU, roadside near creek, 14 Sept 1985 Ignatov (MHA) . Kamchatsky Territory: Ust’-Bolsheretsky Distr., 800 m southwards from Pauzhetka Settl., upper heothermal field, 170 m alt., 1 Oct 2001, Samkova 3 (MW9027943) ; Elizovo Distr., Kronotsky State Reserve, Geyzerov valley, thermal fields, 27 Sept 1961 Lescshina (MW9027942, 9027944) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D85C3C5EFF9FB44CFCF5F96C3E1FFBFE	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	Fedosov, V. E.;Fedorova, A. V.;Ignatova, E. I.	Fedosov, V. E., Fedorova, A. V., Ignatova, E. I. (2022): Integrative taxonomic revision of the genus Campylopus (Leucobryaceae, Bryophyta) in Russia. Arctoa 31 (2): 205-222, DOI: 10.15298/arctoa.31.22, URL: https://doi.org/10.15298/arctoa.31.22
