Campylopus subulatus Schimp. ex Milde, Bot. Zeitung

Campylopus subulatus Schimp. ex Milde, Bot. Zeitung View in CoL (Berlin) 20: 460. 1862. Fig. 8

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.

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 & 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 & Vitt (1972) and comment to C. schimperi .

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 View Fig ), 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.

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 & 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 ) .