Diversity of ferns and lycophytes in Brazil

This compilation of ferns and lycophytes in Brazil is an update of the one published in 2010 in Catálogo de Plantas e Fungos do Brasil. The methodology consisted in collecting data from regional checklists, taxonomic revisions, and selected databases. Invited specialists improved the list accessing a website housed at the Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. The results show 1,253 species: 1,111 of ferns and 142 of lycophytes. This number is 6.5% higher than the previous one (1,176 spp.). The percentage of endemic species decreased from 38.2% to 36.7%. We recognized 36 families and 133 genera (vs. 33 families, 121 genera in 2010). The 10 most diverse families are Pteridaceae (196 spp.), Dryopteridaceae (179), Polypodiaceae (164), Hymenophyllaceae (90), Thelypteridaceae (86), Aspleniaceae (78), Lycopodiaceae (64), Selaginellaceae (55), Anemiaceae (51), and Cyatheaceae (45). The three most diverse genera are still Elaphoglossum (87 spp.), Thelypteris (85), and Asplenium (74). The richest phytogeographic domain continues to be in the Atlantic Rainforest with 883 species which also has the largest number of endemic and threatened species, followed by the Amazon Rainforest (503), Cerrado (269), Pantanal (30), Caatinga (26), and Pampa (eight). Minas Gerais remains as the richest state (657 spp. vs. 580 in 2010).Esta compilação de samambaias e licófitas do Brasil é uma atualização daquela de 2010, no Catálogo de Plantas e Fungos do Brasil. A metodologia consistiu na reunião de dados de listas regionais, revisões de grupos e bancos de dados selecionados. Especialistas convidados melhoraram a lista através do acesso a um sítio da web do Jardim Botânico do Rio Janeiro. Os resultados apontam uma diversidade de 1.253 espécies, sendo 1.111 samambaias e 142 licófitas. Este número é 6,5% maior que o anterior (1.176 espécies). As espécies endêmicas decresceram de 38,2% para 36,7%. Foram reconhecidas 36 famílias e 133 gêneros (vs. 33 famílias, 121 gêneros em 2010). As dez famílias mais diversas são: Pteridaceae (196 espécies), Dryopteridaceae (179), Polypodiaceae (164), Hymenophyllaceae (90), Thelypteridaceae (86), Aspleniaceae (78), Lycopodiaceae (64), Selaginellaceae (55), Anemiaceae (51) e Cyatheaceae (45). Os três gêneros mais diversos continuam sendo Elaphoglossum (87 espécies), Thelypteris (85) e Asplenium (74). O Domínio Fitogeográfico mais rico continua sendo a Mata Atlântica (883 espécies) e também com mais espécies endêmicas e ameaçadas, seguido pela Amazônia (503 espécies), Cerrado (269), Pantanal (30), Caatinga (26) e Pampa (oito). Minas Gerais permanece como o estado com maior riqueza (657 espécies vs. 580 em 2010)

Diversity of ferns and lycophytes in Brazil

Abstract This compilation of ferns and lycophytes in Brazil is an update of the one published in 2010 in Catálogo de Plantas e Fungos do Brasil. The methodology consisted in collecting data from regional checklists, taxonomic revisions, and selected databases. Invited specialists improved the list accessing a website housed at the Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. The results show 1,253 species: 1,111 of ferns and 142 of lycophytes. This number is 6.5% higher than the previous one (1,176 spp.). The percentage of endemic species decreased from 38.2% to 36.7%. We recognized 36 families and 133 genera (vs. 33 families, 121 genera in 2010). The 10 most diverse families are Pteridaceae (196 spp.), Dryopteridaceae (179), Polypodiaceae (164), Hymenophyllaceae (90), Thelypteridaceae (86), Aspleniaceae (78), Lycopodiaceae (64), Selaginellaceae (55), Anemiaceae (51), and Cyatheaceae (45). The three most diverse genera are still Elaphoglossum (87 spp.), Thelypteris (85), and Asplenium (74). The richest phytogeographic domain continues to be in the Atlantic Rainforest with 883 species which also has the largest number of endemic and threatened species, followed by the Amazon Rainforest (503), Cerrado (269), Pantanal (30), Caatinga (26), and Pampa (eight). Minas Gerais remains as the richest state (657 spp. vs. 580 in 2010)

A community-derived classification for extant lycophytes and ferns

Phylogeny has long informed pteridophyte classification. As our ability to infer evolutionary trees has improved, classifications aimed at recognizing natural groups have become increasingly predictive and stable. Here, we provide a modern, comprehensive classification for lycophytes and ferns, down to the genus level, utilizing a community-based approach. We use monophyly as the primary criterion for the recognition of taxa, but also aim to preserve existing taxa and circumscriptions that are both widely accepted and consistent with our understanding of pteridophyte phylogeny. In total, this classification treats an estimated 11 916 species in 337 genera, 51 families, 14 orders, and two classes. This classification is not intended as the final word on lycophyte and fern taxonomy, but rather a summary statement of current hypotheses, derived from the best available data and shaped by those most familiar with the plants in question. We hope that it will serve as a resource for those wanting references to the recent literature on pteridophyte phylogeny and classification, a framework for guiding future investigations, and a stimulus to further discourse

A community-derived classification for extant lycophytes and ferns

Phylogeny has long informed pteridophyte classification. As our ability to infer evolutionary trees has improved, classifications aimed at recognizing natural groups have become increasingly predictive and stable. Here, we provide a modern, comprehensive classification for lycophytes and ferns, down to the genus level, utilizing a community-based approach. We use monophyly as the primary criterion for the recognition of taxa, but also aim to preserve existing taxa and circumscriptions that are both widely accepted and consistent with our understanding of pteridophyte phylogeny. In total, this classification treats an estimated 11 916 species in 337 genera, 51 families, 14 orders, and two classes. This classification is not intended as the final word on lycophyte and fern taxonomy, but rather a summary statement of current hypotheses, derived from the best available data and shaped by those most familiar with the plants in question. We hope that it will serve as a resource for those wanting references to the recent literature on pteridophyte phylogeny and classification, a framework for guiding future investigations, and a stimulus to further discourse

Diagnosis and treatment in chronic pancreatitis: an international survey and case vignette study

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the current opinion and clinical decision-making process of international pancreatologists, and to systematically identify key study questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis (CP) for future research.Methods: An online survey, including questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CP and several controversial clinical case vignettes, was send by e-mail to members of various international pancreatic associations: IHPBA, APA, EPC, ESGE and DPSG.Results: A total of 288 pancreatologists, 56% surgeons and 44% gastroenterologists, from at least 47 countries, participated in the survey. About half (48%) of the specialists used a classification tool for the diagnosis of CP, including the Mayo Clinic (28%), Mannheim (25%), or Buchler (25%) tools. Overall, CT was the preferred imaging modality for evaluation of an enlarged pancreatic head (59%), pseudocyst (55%), calcifications (75%), and peripancreatic fat infiltration (68%). MRI was preferred for assessment of main pancreatic duct (MPD) abnormalities (60%). Total pancreatectomy with auto-islet transplantation was the preferred treatment in patients with parenchymal calcifications without MPD abnormalities and in patients with refractory pain despite maximal medical, endoscopic, and surgical treatment. In patients with an enlarged pancreatic head, 58% preferred initial surgery (PPPD) versus 42% initial endoscopy. In patients with a dilated MPD and intraductal stones 56% preferred initial endoscopic +/- ESWL treatment and 29% preferred initial surgical treatment.Conclusion: Worldwide, clinical decision-making in CP is largely based on local expertise, beliefs and disbeliefs. Further development of evidence-based guidelines based on well designed (randomized) studies is strongly encouraged

Diagnosis and treatment in chronic pancreatitis: an international survey and case vignette study

Background The aim of the study was to evaluate the current opinion and clinical decision-making process of international pancreatologists, and to systematically identify key study questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis (CP) for future research. Methods An online survey, including questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CP and several controversial clinical case vignettes, was send by e-mail to members of various international pancreatic associations: IHPBA, APA, EPC, ESGE and DPSG. Results A total of 288 pancreatologists, 56% surgeons and 44% gastroenterologists, from at least 47 countries, participated in the survey. About half (48%) of the specialists used a classification tool for the diagnosis of CP, including the Mayo Clinic (28%), Mannheim (25%), or Büchler (25%) tools. Overall, CT was the preferred imaging modality for evaluation of an enlarged pancreatic head (59%), pseudocyst (55%), calcifications (75%), and peripancreatic fat infiltration (68%). MRI was preferred for assessment of main pancreatic duct (MPD) abnormalities (60%). Total pancreatectomy with auto-islet transplantation was the preferred treatment in patients with parenchymal calcifications without MPD abnormalities and in patients with refractory pain despite maximal medical, endoscopic, and surgical treatment. In patients with an enlarged pancreatic head, 58% preferred initial surgery (PPPD) versus 42% initial endoscopy. In patients with a dilated MPD and intraductal stones 56% preferred initial endoscopic ± ESWL treatment and 29% preferred initial surgical treatment. Conclusion Worldwide, clinical decision-making in CP is largely based on local expertise, beliefs and disbeliefs. Further development of evidence-based guidelines based on well designed (randomized) studies is strongly encouraged