Mosses and Liverworts of Uganda (MALOU) 

Instructions for authors

The main objective is to provide an inexpensive flora enabling the identification of Ugandan bryophytes. The availability of such a work would greatly facilitate further bryological study in Uganda and neighbouring countries. It might catalyse the initiation of similar projects in other African countries and would provide a significant step on the path towards a comprehensive bryophyte flora of Africa. The preparation of this work is seen as a particularly effective way of utilizing the large and unique dataset arising from the British Bryological Society's bryophyte collecting expeditions to Uganda in 1996-1998.

Authors

Thirty-one individuals have been invited to participate as authors, usually for one or more families, but sometimes the units are sub-families, groups of genera or a single genus. Most authors are being asked to contribute around 20-30 species accounts. It is not essential that authors have themselves bryologised in Uganda (although many will have done so) but it is hoped that all or most of the descriptions will be based on Ugandan specimens. Authors will be responsible for obtaining material from various possible sources (see below) and preparing the illustrations that will accompany their contributions. Each account will bear the name of the author and of course may be cited as a publication within an edited book. To a large extent authors will be 'on their own' but the editors (J.W. Bates, N.G. Hodgetts, B.J. O'Shea) will try to smooth lines of communication and to solve any major problems that arise. We regret that we are unable to offer payments or to offset any expenses incurred - the rewards for participation are the satisfaction and academic kudos associated with a project of this kind. 

Publication

To reflect the value of each author's contribution properly, yet at the same time to make the end product affordable in Africa and elsewhere, it has been decided that the work should be published as a robust but 'no frills' book. This is the main reason that we are constraining authors to write relatively brief accounts. New York Botanical Garden have agreed to consider it for publication. The book will contain accounts of every bryophyte species known to occur in Uganda. These will be supported by the following introductory or end sections: bryophyte structure and life cycle (J.W. Bates); collecting, examining and making an herbarium (J.W. Bates); synopsis of the classification system, keys to bryophyte families (the editors collectively); summary of Ugandan bryophyte habitats (N.G. Hodgetts); a history of Ugandan bryology (B.J. O'Shea); glossary of technical terms; index.

Timetable

It is anticipated that it will take five to six years to bring the project to fruition. In the first two or so years the main activity will be the naming of the many specimens collected during the BBS expeditions and generation of an improved checklist. 

There are two major uncertainties which make the drawing up of a checklist problematic: (1) has the flora been sampled adequately?; (2) can we rely on previously published records? As no authoritative answer can be given to either question, we strongly recommend that authors: (i) consult with the editors and family coordinators before starting their contributions and at intervals thereafter, (ii) carry out their own researches in herbaria, (iii) try to check specimens on which older records were based. The supplied checklist should be regarded as an interim one.

The main dates for the project as far as authors are concerned are:

(a) Final deadline for submission of manuscripts, 31 August 2003.

(b) Go to press, end March 2004.

(c) Target date for publication, autumn 2004.

The editors would prefer to receive contributions from now onwards leading up to the final deadline, therefore earlier submissions will be most welcome.

Sources of specimens and information

The BBS expeditions have resulted in the collection of many hundreds of Ugandan bryophytes which are now distributed to authors. In addition, older collections exist in a number of major herbaria in the northern hemisphere. Approximately 1500 unidentified Ugandan bryophytes are held in London at the Natural History Museum (BM) of which around 1000 were collected by Dr Francis Rose. It is hoped that these will be made available in exchange for naming the specimens. There is also a small collection, partly unnamed, at the herbarium of the Botany Department of Makerere University in Kampala. Ugandan specimens may reside in other herbaria, we would be pleased to know of any important collections.

No single database exists for the BBS materials and there is no intention of beginning one at this stage. Instead, use will be made of an existing network of family coordinators that was originally established by members of the BBS Tropical Bryology Group to hold information and get specimens named from the Malawi expedition. The family coordinators have agreed to act as keepers of records (and often specimens) and it is these people that will manage the distribution and recovery of specimens from authors. The coordinators have funding from the BBS to support postage of specimens, etc., but are busy people so please be uncommonly reasonable in your dealings with them! Because new species will inevitably be added to the Ugandan list from time to time as identifications proceed, it is important that authors are patient, remain vigilant and retain flexibility in their developing contributions so that any new taxa can easily be accommodated. The editors will make every effort to communicate new records to those whom they concern.

Nature of the contributions

Each author may be responsible for a single family, a number of small families, a group of genera or a single genus, or some mixture of these. Family and genera will appear as headings in the flora, each with brief descriptions. Text lines should be double-spaced. Please submit your contribution in TRIPLICATE , including three photocopies of each figure (these should be the ones with handwritten labels, see below), and also send the textual material (inc. figure legends) on diskette (preferably Word, WordPerfect or WordPro). The account for each family, block of genera or separated genus should be regarded as a separate document (and computer file) as they may need to be reordered to suit changes in taxonomy (or our perceptions of it) during the project.

Family descriptions

Where the genera within a family are divided between separate authors, the author with the largest number of genera should normally provide the family description and key to genera (in these cases we encourage authors to contact each other to discuss possible collaboration). Give the family name in bold capitals (centred), followed below by the author’s (your) name in the following format:

DICRANACEAE

By A. Brown

Where several authors are involved the several authors’ names should appear in ‘genus order’with superscript numerals and footnote explaining the responsibilities as below:

DICRANACEAE

By A. Brown¹, B. Black² & C. White³

[Footnote follows] Genus responsibilities: ¹Anisothecium - Bryohumbertia, ²Campylopus, ³Dicranella - Rhabdoweisia

Names and addresses of authors will be gathered into a list of contributors following the Contents. Restrict yourself to a brief family description not exceeding 150 words, shorter if possible. Remember that the purpose of the description is to aid identifications, and does not need to be a full catalogue of all known characters. Family descriptions will not be necessary if there is only one Ugandan genus in the family, and no obvious likelihood of a second genus being found.

Key to the genera

Where there is more than one genus in a family, a key to the genera must be provided. In the cases of families split between authors, the author with the greatest number of genera should normally provide the key. The key should follow the family description, without a separate heading and after a line space. The format is shown in this fictitious example:

(NB - please see printed version of this document for the layout of keys: this is just a web version)

i.e. use a single number for each couplet, separate the contrasts by semicolons, indent lines after the first in each lead, do not use dotted lines to join leads to the following numbers or generic names. Please use the normal convention of placing the most important contrasts first in each couplet and grading towards less important distinctions.

Genus descriptions

If there is more than one genus, use an alphabetical sequence, but if it is more appropriate, use an accepted sequence within the family that reflects current understanding of phylogenetic relationships. The genus heading should appear thus:

BRYUM Hedw., Sp. Musc., 1801

i.e. centre the heading, give the genus only in bold capitals, give the author following the conventions of R.K. Brummitt & C.E. Powell (eds, 1992, Authors of Plant Names. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens) for author names and abbreviations (the editors will check this), in the protologue use standard abbreviations for books and journals (as in fourth edition of World List of Periodicals and supplements) and do not apply italics or bold type. Do not give details of types and please omit synonyms unless there have been name changes since the publication of the standard African checklists (These are: O’Shea BJ. 1999. Checklist of the mosses of sub-Saharan Africa (version 3, 11/99). Tropical Bryology Research Reports 1: 1-133; Wigginton MJ. 2002. Checklist and distribution of the liverworts and hornworts of sub-Saharan Africa, including the East African Islands (edition 1, February 2002). Tropical Bryology Research Reports 3: 1-88. Both volumes can be downloaded from links on the TBG pages.).

Once again restrict the genus description to about 150 words (preferably less), although in the case of large genera, where a saving can be made in the lengths of the subsequent species accounts by avoiding duplication, there may be an argument for slightly lengthier accounts - but remember the objective is to aid the identifier by providing the key characters, rather than a full description. The account should normally be a single paragraph without subheadings.

Key to the species

Where the genus contains more than one species the author must provide a key. This should follow on (without a heading) from the genus description after leaving the equivalent of a line-space (two lines in the double-spaced format that you will submit). The layout should be exactly as follows (example is fictitious!):

(NB - please see printed version of this document for the layout of keys: this is just a web version)

Individual species accounts

Species should be presented in alphabetic order. Species descriptions should be based on Ugandan material. In exceptional cases, and where the existence of the species in Uganda has been verified beyond reasonable doubt, specimens from neighbouring countries may be used. This is most likely to apply to the comparatively large number of rarities recorded from the Rwenzori range. A related problem may be encountered: some bryophytes are known from the Rwenzoris but it is unknown whether they were growing in Uganda or neighbouring Congo (Zaire). Authors may use their discretion if they think that there is a high probability that the taxon may occur in Uganda. A similar problem may arise with respect to the Kenyan border on the summit of Mount Elgon. The situation should be made clear in the distributional notes. Such taxa are likely to be represented by very few specimens in herbaria.

The account for each species should consist of a verbal description and a set of illustrations combined into a single figure for that taxon. It is the author's responsibility to provide both components. The requirements for illustrations are dealt with in a separate section.

The species banner should appear thus:

Bryum africanum Hedw., Sp. Musc., 1801 (Fig. 00)
(Afrobryum indicum Mitt.)

i.e. with the full generic name and species epithet left-justified and in bold type, the remainder in normal type, authors names to follow Brummitt & Powell's conventions, use standard abbreviations for books and journals in the protologue (see above). Include a reference to the figure. A recently used synonym may appear in parentheses on a second line in cases where its omission would lead to confusion, but long lists of redundant names will not be acceptable, and details of types should not be given.

Authors should publish any original taxonomic contributions as separate papers. Novelties (including new combinations) should not appear in the flora; however, authors are encouraged to express their views clearly where there is taxonomic uncertainty and to take a sensible line to reduce chaos in difficult groups. However, we do not expect every taxonomic problem to be resolved in this introductory work! Any novelties should be published as soon as possible, to predate the publication of the book, and the editors are already preparing a paper to contain new and interesting records and nomenclatural novelties, and would welcome all authors to contribute to this.

Paragraph 1. The main body of the species account should consist of a one-paragraph description of the plant. This should not exceed 8-12 lines and key words (e.g. stem, leaf, nerve, border, perianth, capsule, spores) within it should be italicised. Start a new sentence for each part of the plant: stem, leaf, seta etc. Distinctions from closely similar species should be emphasised at the end of this section. Write clearly, avoid abbreviations and keep technical terms to a minimum. Unavoidable jargon (e.g. for leaf shapes) will be gathered together in the glossary by the editors. Give all dimensions in millimetres (mm) or micrometres (µm). Cell dimensions should be measured from ‘middle lamella’ to ‘middle lamella’. Reference to the illustrations may be made from within the account, in the form '(Fig. 00 x)', where x is the label in the illustration.

Infraspecific taxa should not receive separate treatment but are to be included [without sub-heading] in a very short additional paragraph immediately following the description of the parent species. This should mention only the distinguishing features.

Paragraph 2. The description should be followed by a separate paragraph describing, in one or a few sentences, the known distribution in Uganda. Generalise this as far as possible rather than naming particular sites, however, it makes sense to name the localities of very rare taxa to encourage their discovery elsewhere. Add a final sentence describing the distribution elsewhere in Africa and in the rest of the World. Use the accepted English names for countries and regions, not obscure technical terms like ‘Af3’. Indent the first line of this paragraph but do not apply any kind of sub-heading.

Paragraph 3. Habitat and ecology should be the subject of another brief paragraph [indent first line, no subheading]. Try as far as possible to summarise the types of habitat occupied in Uganda. Cite any important ecological papers in which the species is mentioned.

Excluded taxa

If, during the production of your account, you are able to show that any taxon included in the current African checklists is recorded in error for Uganda, please draw attention to this by providing a list of excluded taxa on a separate sheet. List each taxon followed by a brief explanation for your decision. These entries will be gathered together at the back of the flora, and included in future issues of the African checklists.

References

Gather together (on a separate sheet) any references cited in your contribution for incorporation in a single literature list. References may be cited directly in the text, e.g. Smith (1990), or indirectly in support of an argument, like this (Fife, 1995; Vitt, 1993). List the references in alphabetical and then chronological order. Follow the style now used in Journal of Bryology and a number of other botanical journals. Examples:

Smith AJE. 1990. The liverworts of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Style for a book.]

Fife A. 1995. Checklist of the mosses of New Zealand. Bryologist 98: 313-337. [Style for a paper.]

Vitt DH. 1993. Orthotrichaceae. In: Sharp AJ, Crum HA, Eckel PM, eds. The moss flora of Mexico. New York: New York Botanical Garden, 590-657. [Style for an article in an edited book.]

Illustrations

These should be economical but show the main features that must be observed for confident identification. Habit drawings of single shoots or thalli are essential. The simple but effective illustrations in Flora of the Guianas. Musci III. Leucomiaceae, Thuidiaceae, Sematophyllaceae, Hypnaceae (ed. A.R.A. Gorts-Van Rijn. 1996. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens) show exactly the kind of detail that is required and provide a useful model.

1. The originals for figures should fill a sheet of A4 paper (approx. 296 x 212 mm) for reduction to 30-50% of the original size (depending on eventual page format). If it is necessary to make larger drawings, it is the author’s responsibility to provide a good A4 copy that will take further reduction as detailed above. Illustrations that will occupy less space than normal should take up proportionately less space on the A4 paper.

2. Portrait orientation (not landscape) should be used.

3. Do not frame or box the illustrations.

4. Use black ink and avoid fine lines that may not reproduce clearly.

5. When dealing with a group of closely similar taxa where it would be pointless repeating drawings of identical structures, several taxa may be combined into one figure to facilitate comparisons. The editors welcome novel solutions to the problem of illustrating critical differences between taxa. The same limits on sizing of originals apply (see 1).

6. Avoid wasting space in figures, e.g. overlap leaf outlines with other structures when features will not be obscured. The editors will return figures for revision if they are excessively widely spaced or too closely bunched. Use arrows to localize drawings of groups of cells to particular parts of a leaf or other structure. This reduces the need for extensive legends.

7. Place legends for your figures on a separate sheet, not on the figure original. Use lower case Roman letters (not Roman numerals) to specify separate items in each figure. Do not apply lettering to the originals. Instead submit a photocopy clipped to each original on which you have clearly written the letters in the positions in which they are to appear. This is so a consistent style of lettering can be applied throughout the work.

8. Use scale bars drawn with a thicker line than the illustrations (see examples previously supplied) rather than magnifications. Again, do not apply the lettering on the original but indicate it on the photocopy. Measurement units should be either mm or µm. Please try to keep to simple scales like 100 µm and 1 mm.

9. Each figure legend should be composed as follows:

Figure 6. Taxon name  a, portion of a leafy stem with mature sporophytes; b, stem leaves; c, branch leaves; etc. Smith U338, U341 (NMW).

i.e. omit the authors for the name; leave two spaces after the name before starting 'a'; place a comma after each letter; separate the components by semicolons and end the list with a full stop. As it may assist future taxonomic work, finish the caption with the collector’s name and number(s) of the specimens that were illustrated (in italics), and their whereabouts if in a public herbarium (Roman type, in parentheses). Ideally, all such specimens should be deposited in a reputable herbarium.

9. Use your own numbering system for the figures starting with Figure 1. The editors will devise a single continuous numbering system when all the accounts have been received.

Submission and editing

Please send your contribution in triplicate to: Dr J.W. Bates, Department of Biology, Imperial College at Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 7PY, U.K. by 31 August 2003, or earlier (see above). All contributions will be read by all three editors and any required corrections will be communicated to you through the editor responsible for your family.