Spore Studies in the Musci, with Special Reference to the Genus Bruchia

Abstract

When Hedwig published his famous Species Muscorum in 1801, critical microscopic observations of the finer morphological characteristics of mosses were limited by crude microscopes and microscopic technique. Therefore, it is not surprising that spores were not included in his descriptions. Apparently it was not until 35 years later that spores were mentioned in descriptions of mosses. At this time, Schimper in his Bryologia Europaea (18361855) referred to the spores in many specific descriptions and in most, if not all, generic descriptions. For the most part, his observations on spores were rather superficial, e.g., sporae olivaceae, parvulae or sporae exiguae, sublaeves. Some of the famous bryological floras which appeared shortly after the publication of the Bryologia Europaea, such as Wilson's Bryologia Britannica (1855), Dozy's Bryologia Javanica (18551861) and De Notaris' Musci Italici (1862), often included brief observations on the spores including size (large, medium, small, very small, etc.), color and, less frequently, sculpturing. However, it is quite apparent from a survey of the subsequent literature that descriptions of moss spores have never progressed much beyond this point. Since the time of Schimper, in fact, most authors of well-known bryological manuals, such as Limpricht, Sullivant, Lesquereux and James, Grout, Braithwaite, Miiller and Dixon, refer to spores very casually, if at all. Of the authors who treat spores more fully, perhaps Roth is the best source for spore information. In his Die europiiischen Laubmoose (1904-1905), Roth included in nearly every specific description color, size, sculpturing, shape and time of maturation. For example, he described the spores of Ephemerella recurvifolia (Dicks.) Schimp., as follows: Sporen 35-45 4, rundlich bis nierenf6rmig, hellbraun und fast glatt, resp. nur wenig gekornelt. Reife im Winter. Certainly this is an advance over the observations recorded in the