(2764) Oreas Brid., Bryol. Univ. 1: 380. Jan–Mar 1826, nom. cons. prop.

Typus: O. martiana (Hoppe & Hornsch.) Brid. (Weissia martiana Hoppe & Hornsch.), typ. cons. prop.

(H) Oreas Cham. & Schltdl. in Linnaea 1: 29. Jan 1826 [Angiosp.: Cruc.], nom. rej. prop.

Typus: O. involucrata Cham. & Schltdl.

The genus Oreas was introduced by Bridel (Bryol. Univ. 1: 380. 1826) to accommodate three widespread species of moss that are often associated with alpine habitats (O. mielichhoferi Brid., nom. illeg., O. martiana, and O. elongata (Hoppe & Hornsch.) Brid.). Later, Hornschuch (in Nees & al., Bryol. Germ. 2(2): 179. 1831) supplied the name Mielichhoferia Hornsch. to replace Oreas Brid., which he considered a later homonym of Oreas Cham. & Schltdl. (in Linnaea 1: 29. 1826) (Hornschuch, l.c.: footnote). Hornschuch included only two of Bridel's original three species in this new genus, namely Mielichhoferia nitida Hornsch., nom. illeg. (≡ O. mielichhoferi ≡ Mielichhoferia mielichhoferiana (Funck) Loeske) and Mielichhoferia elongata (Hoppe & Hornsch.) Hornsch. (≡ O. elongata), while he restored O. martiana to the genus Weissia where it had been originally described.

The first volume of Bridel's Bryologia universa, containing the protologue for Oreas, probably appeared sometime in Jan–Mar 1826, but the actual date is rather uncertain (Margadant, Early Bryol. Lit.: 65–67. 1968; Stafleu & Cowan in Regnum Veg. 94: 325. 1976). Despite this uncertainty, and especially given the footnote by Hornschuch it seems likely that Oreas Cham. & Schltdl. (l.c.) appeared earlier, since the first issue of Linnaea is dated Jan 1826 (Stafleu & Cowan in Regnum Veg. 112: 195. 1985). However, contrary to Hornschuch's assessment, Bruch & Schimper (in Bruch & al., Bryol. Europ. [4: 30] (fasc. 12: Oreas: 4). 1842) asserted that Oreas Cham. & Schltdl. appeared later and reinstated Oreas Brid. as a monotypic genus for O. martiana while also retaining the genus Mielichhoferia for the other taxa (l.c.: [4: 64] (fasc. 23–24). 1844). This disposition gained widespread acceptance (Montagne in Orbigny, Dict. Univ. Hist. Nat. 8: 400. 1846; Rabenhorst, Deutschl. Krypt.‐Fl. 2(3): 187. 1849; Müller, Syn. Musc. Frond.: 509. 1849) and is also how the taxa are treated today with Oreas Brid. placed in Rhabdoweisiaceae (Dicranales) and Mielichhoferia in Mniaceae (Bryales; Goffinet & al. in Goffinet & Shaw, Bryoph. Biol., ed. 2: 106, 110. 2009). The nomenclatural history of the genus up to that time was briefly summarized by Pfeiffer (Nomencl. Bot. 2: 518. 1874), and the choices of types in his Nomenclator (given in parentheses) are acceptable typifications of the corresponding generic names (cf. Art. 7 Ex. 17 of the ICN, Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). In this case Pfeiffer typified Oreas Brid. with “Weissia Mielichhoferi Schwägr.” (≡ Weissia mielichhoferiana Funck) and “Oreas Brid. emend. Rabenh.” with O. martiana.

The modern usage of Oreas Brid. (sensu Bruch & Schimper) as a monotypic genus for O. martiana was later challenged by Lindberg (Utkast Eur. Bladmoss.: 20–21. 1878) and others (e.g., Braithwaite, Brit. Moss Fl. 2: 139. 1890; Dixon, Stud. Handb. Brit. Mosses, ed. 3: 326. 1924). Lindberg considered O. martiana to belong to the genus Oncophorus (Brid.) Brid. and instead used Oreas Brid. for the taxa placed in Mielichhoferia by Hornschuch. Lindberg's point of view has since fallen from favor, and later authors have preferred to follow Bruch & Schimper in using Oreas Brid. for O. martiana (e.g., Brotherus in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam., ed. 2, 10: 196. 1924; Van der Wijk & al. in Regnum Veg. 33: 478. 1964). In Index muscorum (Van der Wijk & al., l.c.), Bruch & Schimper's usage was accepted as typification of Oreas Brid. with O. martiana, justifying their application of this name. However, this view is contrary to the provisions of the Code (Art. 10.5; Art. 7 Ex. 17), and Pfeiffer's typification has priority. If the current usage of Oreas Brid. with priority dating from 1826 is to be retained, Pfeiffer's typification cannot stand, and, consequently, we propose to conserve Oreas Brid. with O. martiana as its type. This proposal is not without precedent; Cardot (in Briquet, Recueil Doc. Bruxelles: 50. 1910) proposed to conserve Mielichhoferia against Oreas Brid. (sensu Lindberg) and to conserve the name Oreas Brid. (sensu Bruch & Schimper) against Oncophorus. However, these proposals were not acted upon during the 1910 Congress in Brussels (Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2: 74. 1912) and were dropped from further consideration at later Congresses (Magill in Taxon 42: 8. 1993).

Today, the genus Oreas Brid. is widely accepted to include the single species O. martiana. This species is unrelated to Mielichhoferia and while more closely related to Oncophorus, it is easily separated both morphologically (e.g., Weber in Flora of North America Editorial Committee, Fl. N. Amer. 27: 425. 2007) and molecularly (Fedosov & al. [in review]). On the other hand, Oreas Cham. & Schltdl. (Brassicales, Brassicaceae) has seen limited use and is considered synonymous with Aphragmus Andrz. ex DC. (Prodr. 1: 209. 1824), described two years earlier from the same area. In fact, Oreas Cham. & Schltdl. and Aphragmus may be based on the same type material given the label data for the type specimen in LE of Aphragmus eschscholtzianus Andrz. ex DC. (l.c.: 210) (A. Ebel, pers. comm.). The name Oreas Brid. is in current use worldwide with searches for “Oreas Brid.” yielding around 30 results in Google Scholar, and “Oreas martiana” around 170 results. The species is also included in numerous regional floras and checklists as well as bryological handbooks and national lists of protected species. As outlined above, uncertainty surrounding both its date of publication and correct typification continues to threaten the application of Oreas Brid. in the modern sense. Therefore, conservation of the name Oreas Brid. (with O. martiana as its type) against Oreas Cham. & Schltdl. under Art. 14.9(a) & 14.10 seems necessary to ensure stability of nomenclature and thus meets the criteria of the ICN.

(2765) Rhabdoweisiaceae Limpr., Laubm. Deutschl. 1: 271. Nov 1886 [Mosses], nom. cons. prop.

Typus: Rhabdoweisia Bruch & Schimp.

Limpricht (Laubm. Deutschl. 1: 271. 1886) included Oreas Brid. (Bryol. Univ. 1: 380. 1826), Rhabdoweisia Bruch & Schimp. (Bryol. Europ. [1: 95] (fasc. 33–36). 1846), and four other genera of haplolepideous mosses (Cynodontiella, Cynodontium, Dichodontium, Oreoweisia) in a new family Rhabdoweisiaceae. However, four years earlier, Juratzka (Laubm.‐Fl. Oesterr.‐Ung.: 324. 1882) had described the family Oreadaceae (as ‘Oreadeae’), and, indeed, the genesis of that name goes back to Bruch & Schimper (in Bruch & al., Bryol. Europ. [4: 32, 313, 314] (fasc. 12: t.p., Bartramia: 2 [as ‘Oreadeen’ and ‘Oréadées’], Catoscopium: t. 1, Oreas: t. 1). 1842). Bruch & Schimper used it (without formal description) for a group containing both Oreas Brid. and Catoscopium Brid. that they believed to “représentent des Bartramia en miniature et qui, de leur coté, se rapprochent des Dicranacées et Hedwigiées”. This name was apparently first validly published by Rabenhorst (Deutschl. Krypt.‐Fl. 2(3): 187. 1849) as Oreadeae, an unranked subdivision of the Bryaceae and later established at the rank of tribe by Berkeley (Intr. Crypt. Bot.: 493. 1857, as ‘Oreadei’). The name was also used at the rank of subfamily by Braithwaite (Brit. Moss Fl. 2: 139 1890, as ‘Oreadeae’) although in the sense of Lindberg for the taxa now placed in Mielichhoferia (see above). Juratzka followed Rabenhorst in making his family monotypic, including only Oreas Brid. with the single species O. martiana and reiterated Bruch & Schimper's remarks by stating that Oreas is a genus “deren Charaktere zwischen jenen der Rhabdoweisien u. Bartramien schwanken”. While Bruch & Schimper considered Oreas to be closely related to Catoscopium, Juratzka rightly pointed out its true kinship with Rhabdoweisia, a relationship that has been confirmed in more recent times with molecular methods (e.g., Cox & al. in Phytotaxa 9: 184. 2010; Fedosov & al. [in review]).

Consequently, Limpricht (l.c.) should have adopted the name Oreadaceae rather than describe the new family Rhabdoweisiaceae since the former has priority when Oreas and Rhabdoweisia are treated together in a family segregated from the Dicranaceae. In the years since, two other family names have been published based on related genera that are currently assigned to Rhabdoweisiaceae and are thus considered to be synonyms; these are Cynodontiaceae G. Roth (Eur. Laubm. 1: 185. 1903) and Oncophoraceae M. Stech (in Nova Hedwigia 86: 14. 2008). In the beginning of the 20th century, the genera placed in Rhabdoweisiaceae were merged into a broadly conceived Dicranaceae as subfamily Rhabdoweisioideae Broth. (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. I(3): 312. 1901), and this was generally accepted until the pioneering molecular phylogenetic studies of Stech (in J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 86: 156. 1999), La Farge & al. (in Bryologist 103: 257. 2000, in Syst. Bot. 27: 435. 2002), and Hedderson & al. (in Syst. Bot. 29: 37. 2004). These early studies recovered Oreas, Rhabdoweisia and some other genera in a separate clade not particularly related to the Dicranaceae s.str. All these authors as well as Buck & Goffinet (in Shaw & Goffinet, Bryoph. Biol.: 100. 2000) and Goffinet & Buck (in Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 98: 233. 2004) applied the name Rhabdoweisiaceae to this clade. This was most likely due to the wide acceptance of Brotherus's Rhabdoweisioideae combined with the relative obscurity of Juratzka's Oreadaceae. Consequently, the family name Rhabdoweisiaceae has appeared in a number of regional checklists and many papers dealing with the systematics and taxonomy of haplolepideous mosses. A search for “Rhabdoweisiaceae” via Google Scholar yields around 300 results, while a search for Oreadaceae finds no matches in digitized scientific papers, and Oreadeae yields 8 papers with only one published after 1910. Therefore, in order to maintain stability of nomenclature, we propose conserving the name Rhabdoweisiaceae under the final clause of Art. 14.5 of the ICN by which the name is conserved against all other family names not listed in App. IIB.

（2764）Oreas布里德，Bryol。大学 1：380。1826年1月至3月，标价。缺点 支柱。

Typus：O. martiana（Hoppe＆Hornsch。）桥。（Weissia martiana Hoppe＆Hornsch。），典型值。缺点 支柱。

（H）Oreas Cham。＆Schltdl。于1826年1月29日在Linnaea 1：29 [Angiosp .: Cruc。]，nom。rej。支柱。

Typus：O.珙桐湛。＆Schltdl。

属Oreas通过Bridel引入（Bryol大学1：380 1826），以适应苔三种广泛物种通常与高山栖息地（相关O. mielichhoferi。布里德，NOM illeg，O. martiana，和ö 。elongata（Hoppe＆Hornsch。）桥。后来，Hornschuch（在Nees等人，Bryol。Germ。2（2）：179. 1831中）提供了Mielichhoferia Hornsch这个名字。代替Oreas Brid。，他后来认为是Oreas Cham的谐音。＆Schltdl。（Linnaea 1：29. 1826）（Hornschuch，lc：脚注）。霍恩肖赫（Hornschuch）在这个新属中只包括了布莱德尔最初的三个物种中的两个，即米勒希霍夫·尼迪达（Mielichhoferia nitida）。霍恩斯（Hornsch。）illeg。（≡ O. mielichhoferi ≡ Mielichhoferia mielichhoferiana（Funck）Loeske）和Mielichhoferia泡桐（霍普＆Hornsch）Hornsch。（≡O . elongata），而他又将Martiana Martiana还原为最初描述的Weissia属。

Bridel的Bryologia universa的第一卷，其中包含Oreas的原著，可能出现在1826年1月至3月的某个时候，但实际日期尚不确定（Margadant，Bryol.Lit.Lit。早期：65-67.1968； Regnum的Stafleu＆Cowan Veg.94：325。1976）。尽管这种不确定性，特别是鉴于Hornschuch脚注它很可能是Oreas湛。＆Schltdl。（lc）出现较早，因为Linnaea的第一期发行于1826年1月（Stafleu＆Cowan in Regnum Veg。112：195. 1985）。但是，与Hornschuch的评估相反，Bruch＆Schimper（在Bruch等人，Bryol。Europ。[4：30]（fasc。12：Oreas：4）。1842年）断言Oreas湛 ＆Schltdl。稍后出现，并恢复了Oreas Brid。作为用于单种属O. martiana同时还保留属Mielichhoferia为其他类群（LC：[4：64]（FASC 23-24）1844。）。这种性格得到了广泛的接受（蒙塔涅在Orbigny，大学历史区8：400. 1846; Rabenhorst，德国Krypt.-Fl。2（3）：187. 1849;Müller，Syn。Musc。Frond。 ：509. 1849），也是今天用Oreas Brid如何对待分类单元的方法。置于Rhabdoweisiaceae（Dicranales）和Mielichhoferia在Mniaceae（Bryales; Goffinet等。在Boffoph Goffinet＆Shaw。生物学，主编。2：106，110. 2009）。属，到那时的命名法的历史进行了简单的总结法伊弗（Nomencl博特2：518 1874），和类型在他的选择Nomenclator（括号内）是可以接受相应的通用名称的典型化（CF ICN第7条第17款，Turland等人（Regnum Veg。159. 2018）。在这种情况下，Pfeiffer代表Oreas Brid。带有“ Weissia MielichhoferiSchwägr”。（≡Weissia mielichhoferiana Funck）和“ Oreas Brid。订正。拉本。” 与O. martiana。

Oreas Brid的现代用法。（sensu Bruch＆Schimper）是马丁·O·马蒂亚那的单型属，后来受到Lindberg（Utkast Eur。Bladmoss .: 20-21。1878）和其他人（例如Braithwaite，Brit。Moss Fl。2：139. 1890; Dixon，Stud。Handb。Brit。Mosses，编辑3：326. 1924）。林德伯格认为O. martiana属于属Oncophorus（布里德）布里德。而是改用Oreas Brid。对于放置在分类单元Mielichhoferia通过Hornschuch。观点林德伯格的点以来不再时兴，后来笔者宁愿遵循布鲁赫Schimper使用Oreas布里德。为马蒂亚那（例如，Brotherus in Engler＆Prantl，Nat。Pflanzenfam。，ed。2，10：196. 1924; Van der Wijk等人在Regnum Veg。33：478. 1964）。在指数muscorum（范德Wijk与人，LC），布鲁赫Schimper的使用被接受的典型化Oreas布里德。与O. martiana一起证明其名称的合理性。但是，这种观点违反了《守则》的规定（第10.5条；第7条第17款），并且Pfeiffer的典型代表具有优先权。如果目前使用Oreas Brid。如果要保留1826年的优先权，Pfeiffer的代表作将不能成立，因此，我们建议保留Oreas Brid。与O. martiana作为其类型。该提议并非没有先例。Cardot（在Briquet的Recueil Doc。Bruxelles：50。1910年）建议保留Mielichhoferia对抗Oreas Brid。（sensu Lindberg）并保留名称Oreas Brid。（意义上布鲁赫Schimper）针对Oncophorus。但是，这些提议在1910年布鲁塞尔代表大会期间并未付诸实施（Briquet，RèglesInt。Nomencl。Bot。，第2版：74。1912年），并在以后的代表大会上不再审议（Magill in Taxon 42：8）。 1993）。

今天，Oreas Brid属。被广泛接受包括单一种类的Martiana。本种无关Mielichhoferia同时更密切相关的Oncophorus，很容易分离两种形态（例如，韦伯在北美编辑委员会的植物，FL N.阿梅尔27：425 2007）和分子（Fedosov＆人[[评论中]）。另一方面，Oreas Cham。＆Schltdl。（Brassicales，Brassicaceae）的使用受到限制，并且被认为是Aphragmus Andrz的同义词。前DC。（Prodr。1：209。1824），早在两年前就从同一地区进行了描述。其实Oreas湛 ＆Schltdl。给定了Aphragmus eschscholtzianus Andrz的LE中类型标本的标签数据，Aphragmus和Aphragmus可能基于相同的类型材料。前DC。（lc：210）（A. Ebel，私人通讯）。名字Oreas Brid。目前在全球范围内使用搜索“ Oreas Brid”进行搜索。在Google学术搜索中产生了约30个结果，在“ Oreas martiana ”中产生了约170个结果。该物种还包括在众多区域菌群和清单，冰冻手册和国家保护物种清单中。如上所述，发布日期和正确类型的不确定性继续威胁着Oreas的应用没错 在现代意义上。因此，保存名称Oreas Brid。（以O. martiana为类型）对抗Oreas Cham。＆Schltdl。根据艺术。14.9（a）和14.10似乎对于确保术语的稳定性是必要的，因此符合ICN的标准。

（2765）Rhabdoweisiaceae Limpr，Laubm。德国 1：271。1886年11月[摩西]，nom。缺点 支柱。

Typus：Rhabdoweisia布鲁赫Schimp。

Limpricht（Laubm。Deutschl .: 271. 1886）包括Oreas Brid。（Bryol.Univ.1：380.1826），Rhabdoweisia Bruch＆Schimp。（Bryol EUROP [1：95]。（FASC 33-36）1846。），和haplolepideous苔藓（四个其它属Cynodontiella，Cynodontium，Dichodontium，Oreoweisia在一个新的家庭）Rhabdoweisiaceae。但是，四年前，于拉兹卡（Laubm.-Fl。Oesterr.-Ung .: 324. 1882）描述了Oreadaceae家族（简称为Oreadeae），实际上，这个名字的起源可以追溯到Bruch＆Schimper （in Bruch等，Bryol。Europ。[4：32，313，314]（fasc。12：tp，Bartramia：2 [作为'Oreadeen'和'Oréadées']，Catoscopium：t。1，Oreas：t。1）。1842）。Bruch＆Schimper将其（没有正式描述）用于包含Oreas Brid的小组。和Catoscopium Brid。他们认为“représententDES Bartramia连接微型等魁，德勒尔科特，SE rapprochent德Dicranacées等Hedwigiées”。此名称显然第一有效通过Rabenhorst酒店出版（Deutschl Krypt.-FL 2（3）：187 1849）作为Oreadeae，所述的未分级细分真藓科和以后在部落的由伯克利（INTR隐窝秩确定。 Bot .: 493. 1857，as'Oreadei'）。名称也被用来在亚家族由韦特秩（英国人莫斯FL。2：139 1890，为“ Oreadeae ”）虽然在林德伯格感的类群现在放置在Mielichhoferia（见上文）。茹拉兹卡（Juratzka）跟着拉本霍斯特（Rabenhorst），使他的家庭成为单身者，包括只有Oreas Brid。与单一物种O. martiana一起，重申了布鲁赫＆辛普尔（Bruch＆Schimper）的话，他说Oreas是“ Rabdoweisien u”属。Bartramien schwanken”。尽管布鲁赫Schimper认为Oreas是密切相关的Catoscopium，Juratzka正确地指出其真正的亲属关系Rhabdoweisia，最近在分子方法上已证实这种关系（例如，Cox等人在Phytotaxa 9：184。2010； Fedosov等人[综述中]）。

因此，Limpricht（LC）应该都采用了名称Oreadaceae，而不是描述新的家庭Rhabdoweisiaceae因为前者具有优先权时Oreas和Rhabdoweisia一起处理在一个家庭从隔离Dicranaceae。从那以后的几年中，根据相关属公开了另外两个姓氏，这些姓氏目前被分配给鼠李科，因此被认为是同义词。它们是犬齿科G.Roth（欧洲urbaum。1：185. 1903）和M科M. Stech（in Nova Hedwigia 86：14. 2008）。在20世纪初，该属被置于Rhabdoweisiaceae合并成为一个具有广泛设想Dicranaceae作为亚科Rhabdoweisioideae肉汤。（在Engler＆Prantl，Nat。Pflanzenfam。I（3）：312. 1901中），这一直被人们接受，直到Stech的开创性分子系统发育研究为止（在J. Hattori Bot。Lab。86：156. 1999），La法格等 （Bryologist 103：257。2000，Syst。Bot。27：435。2002），以及Hedderson等。（在Syst。Bot。29：37. 2004中）。这些早期研究在与麦草科没有特别关系的单独进化枝中回收了Oreas，Rhabdoweisia和其他一些属。s.str。所有这些作者以及Buck＆Goffinet（在Shaw＆Goffinet，Bryoph。Biol .: 100. 2000）和Goffinet＆Buck（在Monogr。Syst。Bot。Missouri Bot。Gard。98：233. 2004）中使用了该名称。横纹杜鹃科。这很可能是由于广泛接受Brotherus年代Rhabdoweisioideae与Juratzka的相对默默无闻结合Oreadaceae。因此，家族名称Rhabdoweisiaceae出现在许多区域清单和许多涉及单脂苔藓的系统学和分类学的论文中。通过Google Scholar搜索“ Rhabdoweisiaceae ”会产生大约300个结果，而对于Oreadaceae进行搜索在数字化的科学论文中找不到任何匹配的文章，Oreadeae在1910年之后发表了8篇论文，而只有一篇发表。因此，为了保持命名的稳定性，我们建议在Art的最后条款下保留Rhabdoweisiaceae的名称。ICN中的14.5 ，该名称与App中未列出的所有其他姓氏相对应。IIB。