B. Papp szerk.: Studia Botanica Hungarica 35. 2004 (Budapest, 2004)

Erzberger, Peter; Papp, Beáta: Annotated checklist of Hungarian bryophytes

BOROS and VAJDA during long decades of the last century, and now to a large part housed in the bryophyte collections of Budapest (BP), Eger (EGR) and Szombathely (SZO), with vouchers for almost every one of the records published by these two outstanding personalities of Hungarian 20th century bryology. In principle, therefore, the problems due to progress in taxonomy can be overcome by herbarium revision. However, only few genera or species groups have been studied in this respect up to now (e.g. Tortula Sect. Rurales: TÓTH (1986, 1987), Barbula, Didymodon: GALAMBOS (1992), Grimmia: MAIER, PAPP and ERZBERGER, unpubl., Hedwigia, Dicranum tauricum / viride, Ditrichum crispatissimum / flexicaule, Funaria muhlenbergii /pulchella: ERZBERGER (1996, 1999, 2001, 2002), Pohlia Sect. Pohliella: ERZBERGER (in press), Sphagnum: SZURDOKI (2003)). Especially some large and/or difficult genera like Bryum, Racomitrium and Schistidium are in bad need of revision, and our results with respect to these are far from definite. Fortunately, on the other hand, Hungarian specimens have been included in worldwide or European revisions of some genera, e.g. Aloina (DELGADILLO 1975), Grimmia (MUNOZ and PANDO 2000), Schistidium (BLOM 1996), Seligeria (GOS and OCHYRA 1994) and the species of the Calliergon-Scorpidium-Drepanocladus complex (HEDENÄS 2003). This means a substantial contribution to the solution of the problems outlined above. In order to facilitate future research and as a first step towards a specimenbased Hungarian flora, we quote specimen details (herbarium, inventory number, locality, date and collector) for virtually all taxa that are known from a single locality or a few sites only. The taxonomy of horn worts and liverworts follows the recently published checklists of GROLLE and LONG (2000) and SÖDERSTRÖM et al. (2002). For mosses, no comparable comprehensive modern taxonomic treatment is available, therefore, in general, we follow CORLEY et al. (1981) and CORLEY and CRUNDWELL (1991), with the exception of some genera listed below together with the publications on which we rely (Table 1). We have not adopted the more radical changes proposed by ZANDER (1993) in Pottiaceae and HEDENÄS (2003) in Amblystegiaceae and other pleurocarpous mosses, because, contrary to BLOCKEEL and LONG (1998), we feel that perhaps more research is needed to corroborate these concepts. In the interest of nomenclatural stability, we rather followed the more moderate amendments of nomenclature published in several German reference works (LUDWIG et al. 1996, KOPERSKI et al. 2000, NEBEL and PHILIPPI 2000, 2001). For the preparation of the checklist, published reports on the occurrence of taxa in Hungary were evaluated from the following main sources, with critical reference to specimens where appropriate: BOROS (1968), ORBÁN and VAJDA