Bryolog 41 (24 September 2025)

Upcoming

As a general policy, check the website for event updates before you walk out the door!

4–6 February 2026, CNPS Conference. Hosted in Riverside, CA. Make sure to check out the bryology workshop led by our very own Jordan Collins and John MacLaughlin, as well as the panel of bryophyte and lichen presentations moderated by Jordan and Shelly Benson!
27–30 March 2026, Save the Date for SO BE FREE 30 in San Diego County! Further details and registration coming soon.
Intermediate Bryophyte Working Group: MORE
Call for Merch Artwork: MORE

Quarterly Report

On SO BE FREE 29 near the Lost Coast: REPORT
On 2025 Field Trip Report: REPORT
A huge thank you to Amanda Heinrich for her incredible 8 years of service as Bryolog editor ending by service on the chapter board! Amanda’s work on Bryolog, chapter meetings, and countless other duties have inspired so many of us bryologists and kept the chapter running smoothly over the years. Her dedication and love for our community is appreciated beyond words—we wouldn’t be where we are without her.
Congratulations to our 2025 student grant recipients, Frey and Jake!
Frey Rogers’ project will examine bryophytes on San Bruno Mountain, characterizing epiphytic communities along environmental gradients through the analysis of ecological and genetic data.
Jake Bauer’s thesis project aims to better understand the natural and evolutionary history of the rare moss, Triquetrella californica, using phylogeography and ecological modeling.

Timeless Bits

Reflections after Revising an Identification Key, by Nickte Méndez and Paul Wilson: HERE
Buck, W. R., & Goffinet, B. (2024). A new checklist of the mosses of the continental United States and Canada. The Bryologist 127: 484–549.
Coleman, L. A., Wilson, P., & Shipp, J. E. (2025). Bryophyte richness and habitat occupancy along an elevational gradient starting in a mediterranean climate. Madroño 72: 97–110.
CNPS (2025). Saving What Matters Most. Flora, Vol. 8, No. 1.

♥

Report on SO BE FREE 29 near the Lost Coast

The 29th SO BE FREE was held May 30–June 2, 2025, at the Mattole Camp and Retreat Center along the Mattole River between Honeydew and Petrolia near the remote Lost Coast region of Humboldt County in northern California, ably coordinated by Paul Wilson, assisted by Jordan Collins. There was abundant bryodiversity right on the grounds and along the river it overlooks, in a part of the state that few of us had ever seen.

The traditional beginners session and walk was held at Mattole Camp the first day, led by Brent Mishler, and we saw an amazing set of hornworts, liverworts, and mosses. Groups also drove out both days on expeditions to dripping road banks, an alder gallery forest and adjacent beach, and riparian zones along mountain creeks.

Crumia latifolia, wet places along river (photo by Joe Flynn); Alsia californica, on trees on the Mattole grounds (photo by Zane Walker); Mannia gracilis, shady banks along river (photo by Zane Walker)

Fissidens grandifrons, dripping cliffs along river (Photo by Zane Walker); Beginners group exploring along the river; Intrepid bryologists exploring near the graveyard

Leucolepis acanthoneura, on decaying log in Humboldt Redwoods State Park (photo by Brent Mishler); Planning for the next day, Jordan Collins talking to group (photo by Chris Coshland); Champagne bottles from 10th anniversary toast! (photo by Brent Mishler)

On the long and windy road to and from the Camp and Highway 101, most participants were treated with traversing the magnificent Humboldt Redwoods State Park, which harbors huge old-growth coastal redwoods, along with an associated unique set of bryophytes.

There was a large number of students and young professionals attending this year, which bodes well for the future of the Chapter. We ate sumptuously thanks to gourmet catering. The evening microscope and social sessions were outstanding, as were the short research summaries given by students. The Chapter held its annual business meeting, culminating with a champagne toast led by President Kirstin Fisher celebrating the 10th anniversary of being part of C.N.P.S.! A scientifically and socially rewarding time was had by all.

Our yearly group photo showing most of the participants in SO BE FREE 29

Botany 2025 Field Trip Report

Thank you to everyone who attended the Botany 2025 Bryophyte and Lichen Field Trip at Mount San Jacinto! We had an awesome turnout of enthusiastic bryologists and lichenologists, with groups led by Brent Mishler, Chris Coshland, Daphne Stone, Jake Bauer, and Lauren Jonker. Even though the subalpine coniferous habitat was quite dry, we found many interesting species in sheltered microsites, including Pseudoleskeela tectorum, Pohlia camptotrachela, Roaldia revoluta, Syntrichia norvegica, and Scapania undulata (species lists and IDs provided by Brent, Chris, Jake, and John Brinda).

Left: Close-up of Pseudoleskeela tectorum; Right: One group of attendees out on the trail (photos by Jake Bauer)

Surveying of Mount San Jacinto will be continued over the next year by Chris, Jake, and Lauren while our permit is still active (at least once repairs on the tram are finished), so expect more updates on the unique bryophytes of this under-documented region in the future!

♥

Call for Merch Artwork

Help us design some merchandise ideas to present at SO BE FREE 2026! Below you can see some examples from other CNPS chapters.

We will all bring our drawings, scribbles and ideas to SO BE FREE and find what represents our chapter. Artwork that we like the most collectively will be used to make merchandise for the chapter, so our members can rep their love for bryos on T-shirts, hats, stickers, and more! In addition, merchandize funds will help support chapter resources available to members.

Intermediate Bryophyte Working Group

Three of the participants in the recent 2025 SOBEFREE gathering have formed a small working group/study group and plan to get together monthly for a 90-minute virtual meeting on a weekday evening For now, we have been meeting on the second Thursday of every month from 6:30–8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. Among other things, we hope to learn from each other by sharing moss specimen images, keying out mosses together, discussing bryology papers, and other similar activities.

400x view of Cephaloziella sporophyte showing elaters and spores (photo by Jake Bauer)

We would like to recruit a few more bryophyte enthusiasts from the chapter who would be interested in joining this sort of group and can commit to attending meetings regularly and participating in the discussions.

Please email Ken Schneider at kschnei1000[at]gmail[dot]com if you are interested.

♥

Reflections after Revising an Identification Key

—Nickte Méndez and Paul Wilson

Introduction

Keys guide people in identifying species. Experts who write these keys rely on technical distinctions that take time to learn to interpret. At its core, identifying a plant is visual, yet more often than not, keys are presented only as text. The expert author is taking a visual understanding and describing it in only words; then the user has to take those words and interpret a plant that they are viewing. Precision is at risk of being lost in the translation from one channel to another and back, although admittedly botanical experts have honed their descriptive vocabulary over the centuries.

Keys to mosses tend to be even more technical than keys to more familiar groups of organisms. Identification by beginners is arduous because taxon concepts sometimes require evaluation of several characters at once, the characters must be evaluated at different magnifications, and distinctions are unfamiliar. Such technical information was used by Norris and Shevock in their image-free 2004 key to the mosses of California. As a pilot for the California Moss eFlora, we revised their key to Orthotrichaceae, and we illustrated each couplet. Here is one of the illustrated couplets from our key:

S. Stomata phaneroporous as seen in longitudinal section of capsule; usually basal cells elongate, somewhat porose or with sinuose walls ….. T
S’ Stomata cryptoporous; usually basal cells short-rectangular with evenly thickened walls ….. AH

Orthotrichum holzingeri phaneroporous stomata (Norris 70467, UC 1649719). Orthotrichum norrisii cryptoporous stomata (Shevock 32529, UC 1933675)

Our key currently resides at paulsiriwilson.space/orthotrichaceae.

A Brief History of Identification Keys

One of the first keys ever produced incorporated illustrations, Richard Waller’s (1689) Herbs of Britain (Griffing 2011). However, identification keys published in the 18th and 19th centuries rarely contained any images due to publishing constraints. Illustrations would have had to be printed using copperplate engravings, which were costly, or woodcuttings, which were crude (Scharf 2009). When illustrations were included, they were not graphically integrated with the key; rather they were separate figures. Dichotomous keys in the contemporary format were exemplified by Lamarck’s (1778) Flore Francais. Such a dichotomous key consists of couplets, from which the user chooses one of two leads, based on character states (Porter 1959, Davis & Heywood 1963).

Novice users of text-only keys often find it difficult to choose between leads. Identification keys are written under the assumption that the user has botanical vocabulary specific to the taxonomic group (Fischer 2010). However, users more often are individuals who seek to identify specimens in a group about which they have little pre-existing knowledge (Jarvie et al. 1998). An oft’ repeated quip goes, “Keys are written by those who don’t need them for those who can’t use them.” More generously, text-only keys rely on awkward coordination with a glossary.

Graphic design on computers now allows identification keys to use images to support text (Leggett & Kirchoff 2011). Images give meaning to words that otherwise would be only vaguely understood, making it easier to distinguish between contrasting characters (Walter & Winterton 2007). Illustrations are especially useful when differences between species are subtle.

These days, keys can be read on devices that allow for considerable interactivity. Internet-based keys open up an entirely new level of “reading”. The availability of hyperlinks can take the user to a webpage that has abundant detailed information such as a complete species description (Legget & Kirchoff 2011), a herbarium database that contains location, elevation, collection dates, automated mapping, and a library of photos (bryophyteportal.org). A lesser innovation is hyperlinking couplets to one another; this relieves the user from having to scroll if the following couplet is beyond sight of the screen. The key can also lead the user to other images of other character states mentioned in the key (Legget and Kirchoff 2011). Furthermore, a web-based key allows instant global dissemination and constant updating (Walter & Winterton 2007). Aspirationally, all of these features are to be built into the California Moss eFlora, and we might hope that soon, artificial intelligence will train itself in image-to-text translation of bryological vocabulary by examining the text and coordinated images in keys such as ours or Wagner’s Guide to the Liverworts of Orgeon.

The Tradition in Orthotrichum

The Orthotrichaceae is one of the most species-rich groups in California and in the Mediterranean Basin. Vitt’s (1973) A revision of the genus Orthotrichum in North America, north of Mexico and Lewinsky’s (1993) Monographic studies on Orthotrichum (Musci, Orthotrichaceae) effectively dealt with older literature, and have become the starting point for reporting recent novelties. A number of regional treatments have since improved understanding of the group. Flora Briofítica Ibérica, Volume V (Guerra et al. 2014) contains detailed information on 35 species and five additional varieties along with fine line drawings illustrating most characters used in identification. Nationalnyckeln till Sveriges Flora och Fauna (Hedenäs et al. 2014), covering Scandinavia, presents a photograph key to 26 Orthotrichum species. The Moss Flora of Mexico (Sharp et al. 1994) covers 15 species, all of which are illustrated. Flore des Bryophytes du Québec-Labrador (Faubert et al. 2014) provides helpful illustrations and descriptions to 13 species. Lastly, Flora of North America (Vitt 2014) thoroughly describes key characters.

Since Norris and Shevock’s (2004) treatment, a number of Orthotrichaceae new to science have been described, range extensions have been reported, and some of the species have had their names changed (Table 1: Norris et al. 2004, Garilleti et al. 2006, Garilleti et al. 2006, Medina 2008, Garilleti et al. 2011, Medina 2012, Medina et al. 2013, Vigalondo et al. 2016). Ten species are new to California: Orthotrichum acuminatum, O. anodon, O. columbicum, O. confusum, O. cucullatum, O. franciscanum, O. mazinpakanum, O. norrisii, O. persimile, and O. shawii. Also, the genus Orthotrichum has been split into segregate genera (Lara et al. 2016; Lara et al. 2020).

Our key is photographic, web-based, easily accessible, and can be updated. The images associated with each couplet explicate the terminology. They do not detract from the traditional elements of a good key, such as expert sequencing of couplets, rather they enhance the traditional key. Much of Norris and Shevock’s (2004) wording remains. Other couplets were revised. Couplets were reordered. Additional couplets were added to intercalate recently discovered species. It is worth noting that taxonomists who revise keys repeat previous keys without using quotation marks, and those previous keys presumably did the same thing. It’s almost like plagiarism is permitted, although of course a citation is given somewhere so curious scholars can follow the long and winding chain of revisions back to the beginnings of taxonomic knowledge.

On Writing Keys

While revising the key, we reflected on what makes a key good. Keys should be produced with the end-user in mind. The users of keys are most often those with little knowledge of the group. Our aim was to produce a key usable by someone with only a glossary (Malcolm & Malcolm 2006), which was accomplished with the addition of photographs. Below we elaborate on other elements of effective keys.

Before the user even gets started using the key itself, we recommend key writers give tips on how to dissect and observe organisms in their particular group. In our treatment, we have a prolog on how to look at Orthotrichaceae. This is expanded from Norris and Shevock’s (2004) prolog.

Key writers have an urge to keep related plants together. At one extreme, they may call their work a synoptic key, emphasizing characters that are the basis of classification; at the other extreme, an artificial key relies on characters that are the easiest to use despite failing to teach the user about the classification (Bell 1967). Synoptic keys are organized according to taxonomic “natural” relationships (Scharf 2009). This method impedes identification. First, the key uses difficult characters. Second, species that are similar due to convergence will be placed far from one another. Ours is an artificial key.

People argue over having one character per couplet versus giving the user all that you know about a separation (Sokal 1985). The former is simple and makes the key into a tidy outline. However, the latter enables identification of intermediate, ambiguous, or incomplete specimens. When possible we mentioned multiple characters, but we only provided images to one character per couplet. Additional images are available on species pages.

Within a couplet, we placed first the character that we think is the most easily observed, or most categorically different, or one that is unique to a species or larger group. For example:

BF. Axillary hairs hyaline, distinctively long and branched, protruding from the foliose shoots. Capsule cylindric, strongly constricted when dry, leaves unistratose or distal portion rarely with scattered bistratose ridges ….. Orthotrichum pilosissimum
BF’ Axillary hairs, not long and branched and not protruding from foliose shoots. Capsule cylindric, slightly or not constricted when dry, leaves unistratose …… Orthotrichum norrisii

The order in which the characters are mentioned gives their priority.

We also reflected on the order of couplets throughout the key. We tried to arrange the key so that couplets that are placed early on use only characters that are not seasonal; i.e. gametophytic characters such as overall leaf morphology. For example, the first lead in our key divides species according to whether leaves are curled when dry or flat against the shoot. As a last resort and generally near terminal couplets, we used characters of the peristome.

Characters that are easily observable should be used in an early couplet even if they don’t split the field into equally numerous species. For instance, the red exostome of Orthotrichum pulchellum easily separates it from O. columbicum, O. persimile, O. consimile, and O. confusum. Then, the 16 endostome segments of Orthotrichum columbicum separate it from the rest. Orthotrichum persimile is separated based on leaf morphology, leaving O. consimile and O. confusum to be separated based on the hairs of the calyptra. These species are very similar, and the characters that differentiate them are not difficult characters to observe. It is easier to segregate off one species at a time than to separate the group into two equally sized subgroups.

A trick for writing good keys is to pull out intermediate species in an early couplet based on characters that set it apart from the rest.

AO. Capsule exserted, mostly with 8 long ribs alternating with 8 short ones ….. Orthotrichum anomalum
AO’ Capsule immersed to emergent; with 8 or 16 ribs ….. AP

AP. Capsule with 16 ribs ….. Orthotrichum cupulatum
AP’ Capsule with 8 ribs ….. Orthotrichum pellucidum

The in-between state of O. anomalum made us place the ribbing distinction in the latter couplet, after elimination of O. anomalum; reversing the order of the couplets would have not worked as well.

Sometimes it is helpful to write a bypass route into a key. A bypass allows the user to identify species in a distinctive phenological state. We did this for species with gemmae. Specimens with gemmae are keyed through a different section, and specimens with sporophytes are keyed through the main part of the key. Specimens with gemmae require the user to make fewer decisions than specimens with sporophytes. The Swedish flora (Hedenäs et al. 2014) also includes a gemma bypass in their Orthotrichum key. We placed the gemma bypass at the end of the key.

We did not make a random access (matrix based, lucid) key. Random access keys allow the user to choose the order by which characters eliminate possible species (Fransworth et al. 2013). The users read through a list of characters that they may be unfamiliar with, discriminating between character states, and thereby narrowing the field of possibilities. This works fine as long as all characters are equally useful regardless of whether they are separating one set of subgroups or another set of subgroups. The author must have scored all character states objectively and consistently. An advantage of a random access key is that it allows the users to proceed even when certain parts, such as a peristome, are absent. When the character matrix is less straightforward, random access keys can be inferior to traditional keys. Random access keys do not let the author guide the user on the order of characters to examine. They are the extreme opposite of a synoptic key. Users may overlook characters that easily distinguish groups, and try to use characters that are best understood in the context of a subgroup. In the case of Orthotrichaceae, our photos work best at discriminating characters between two species or small groups of species. We did not try to take photos that would define character states throughout the whole set of 40 species.

Another choice is between a bracketed key as opposed to an indented key. The California Moss eFlora allows users to toggle between bracketed and indented formats in KeyBase. Indentation is good when the whole key fits on one page or screen. It allows one to see the structure of the key (Porter 1959). But as soon as a key has so many species that it runs over one page, indentation becomes worse than bracketing. Indented keys have some drawbacks. First, it is difficult to compare two leads in a couplet that are far apart (Porter 1959). Next, it may be difficult to locate the second lead or return to the first lead (Porter 1959, Davis & Heywood 1963, Stace 1989). For our long key, we found the bracketed format to be superior. In a bracketed key, the leads of a couplet are directly juxtaposed (Porter 1959). The format of a bracketed key is improved with the addition of images, and these images can be placed side-by-side directly under the couplet (Legget & Kirchoff 2011).

Finally, it has been suggested that our images could be improved. Our images are of specimens that were not cleared or stained. We only cropped and color corrected. The images in California Mosses (Malcolm et al. 2009) are beautiful, but few bryologists will prepare their slides using potassium hydroxide and view them with differential-interference-contrast microscopy. Another improvement would be to use a stacking program to improve depth of focus. Our images have the dubious virtue of appearing similar to what the casual microscopist will see.

Conclusion

The photographic key we produced is an important contribution to the endeavor of identifying Orthotrichaceae in California. First, our key serves as a prototype that will be incorporated into the California Moss eFlora, and we hope others will make visual online keys as good as or better than ours for other groups. Second, reliable identification is necessary for protecting rare species and extraordinary areas where sensitive species live. Third, identification is a prerequisite to investigating the origins of the flora—how species distributions correlate with climate, endemism, and phylogenetic position.

References

Bell, C. R. 1967. Plant Variation and Classification. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

Davis, P. H. & V. H. Heywood. 1963. Principles of Angiosperm Taxonomy. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. Princeton, New Jersey.

Faubert, J. 2014. Flore des bryophytes du Québec—Labrador. Volume 3: Mousses, second partie. 455 pp. Société Québécoise de Bryologie.

Fischer, M. A. 2010. Do plant identification keys enable identification? Phytologia Balcanica 16: 175–185.

Flora of North America Editorial Committee [R. H. Zander & P. M. Eckel, eds]. 2014. Flora of North America North of Mexico, Volume 28: Bryophyta, part 2. 702 pp. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.

Fransworth, E. J., M. Chu, W. J. Kress, A. K. Neill, J. H. Best, J. Pickering, R. D. Stevenson, G. W. Courtney, J. K. VanDyk & A. M. Ellison. 2013. Next-Generation Field Guides. BioScience 63: 891–899.

Garilleti, R. & F. L. Mazimpaka. 2006. On the presence of Orthotrichum shawii (Orthotrichaceae) in California. The Bryologist 109: 510–515.

Garilleti R., J. R. Shevock, D. H. Norris & F. Lara. 2011. Orthotrichum mazimpakanum sp. nov. and O. anodon (Orthotrichaceae), two similar species from California. The Bryologist 114: 346–355.

Garilleti, R., F. Lara, V. Mazimpaka, D. Bot, F. De. Farmacia & D. Valencia. 2006. Orthotrichum anodon (Orthotrichaceae), a new species from California, and its relationships to other Orthotricha with puckered capsule mouths. The Bryologist 109: 188–196.

Griffing, L. R. 2011. Who invented the dichotomous key? Richard Waller’s watercolors of the herbs of Britain. American Journal of Botany 98: 1911–1923.

Guerra, J., M. J. Cano & M. Brugués (eds). 2014. Flora Briofítica Ibérica, Volumen V. 264 pp. Sociedad Espanola de Briologia.

Hedenäs, L., C. Reisborg & T. Hallingbäck. 2014. Nationalnyckeln till Sveriges Flora och Fauna: Bladmossor, Kompaktmossor-kapmossor. 366 pp. ArtDatabanken (Swedish Threatened Species Unit)

Jarvie, J. K. & P. F. Stevens. 1998. Interactive keys, inventory, and conservation. Conservation Biology 12: 222–224.

Lamarck, J. P. 1779. Flore francoise. Ed. 1. Imprimerie Royale, Paris.

Lara, F., I. Draper, M. Flagmeier, J. A. Calleja, V. Mazimpaka & R. Garilleti. 2020. Let’s make Pulvigera great again: re-circumscription of a misunderstood group of Orthotrichaceae that diversified in North America, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 193: 180–206.

Lara, F., I. Draper, M. Flagmeier, J. A. Calleja, V. Mazimpaka & R. Garilleti. 2020. Let’s make Pulvigera great again: re-circumscription of a misunderstood group of Orthotrichaceae that diversified in North America, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 193: 180–206

Lara, F., R. Garilleti, B. Goffinet, I. Draper, R. Medina, B. Vigalondo & V. Mazimpaka. 2016. Lewinskya, a new genus to accommodate the phaneroporous and monoicous taxa of Orthotrichum (Bryophyta, Orthotrichaceae). Cryptogamie, Bryologie 37: 361–382.

Leggett, R. & B. K. Kirchoff. 2011. Image use in field guides and identification keys: review and recommendations. AoB Plants 11: 1–37.

Lewinsky, J. 1993. A synopsis of the genus Orthotrichum Hedw. (Musci, Orthotrichaceae). Bryobrothera 2: 1–59.

Malcolm, B. & N. Malcolm. 2006. Mosses and other bryophytes, an illustrated glossary, 2nd Ed. Micro-Optics Press, Nelson, New Zealand.

Malcolm, B., N. Malcolm, D. Norris & J. Shevock. 2009. California mosses. Micro-Optics Press, Nelson, New Zealand.

Medina, R., F. Lara, V. Mazimpaka & R. Garilleti. 2008. Orthotrichum norrisii (Orthotrichaceae), a new epiphytic Californian moss. The Bryologist 111: 670–675.

Medina, R., F. Lara, B. Goffinet, R. Garilleti & V. Mazimpaka. 2012. Integrative taxonomy successfully resolves the pseudo-cryptic complex of the disjunct epiphytic moss Orthotrichum consimile s.l. (Orthotrichaceae). Taxon 61: 1180–1198.

Medina, R., F. Lara, B. Goffinet, R. Garilleti & V. Mazimpaka. 2013. Unnoticed diversity within the disjunct moss Orthotrichum tenellum s.l. validated by morphological and molecular approaches. Taxon 62: 1133–1152.

Norris, D. H. & J. R. Shevock. 2004. Contributions toward a bryoflora of California: II A key to the mosses. Madroño 51: 133–269.

Norris, D. H., J. R. Shevock & B. Goffinet. 2004. Orthotrichum kellmanii (Bryopsida, Orthotrichaceae), a remarkable new species from the central coast of California. The Bryologist 107: 209–214.

Porter, C. L. 1959. Taxonomy of Flowering Plants. W. H. Freeman and Company, Inc.

Scharf, S. T. 2009. Identification keys, the “natural method,” and the development of plant identification manuals. Journal of the History of Biology 42: 73–117.

Sharp, A. J., H. Crum & P. M. Eckel. 1994. The Moss Flora of Mexico. Memoirs of The New York Botanical Garden 69.

Sokal, R. R. 1985. The continuing search for order. American Naturalist 126: 729–749.

Stace, C. A. 1989. Plant Taxonomy and Biosystematics. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.

Vigalondo, B. F. Lara, I. Draper, V. Valcarcel, R. Garilleti & V. Mazimpaka. 2016. Is it really you, Orthotrichum acuminatum? Ascertaining a new case of intercontinental disjunction in mosses. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 180: 30–49.

Vitt, D. H. 1973. A revision of the genus Orthotrichum in North America, north of Mexico. Bryophytorum Bibliotheca 1: 1–208.

Waller, R. 1686. A catalogue of simple and mixt colours, with a specimen of each colour fixed to its proper name. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 16: 24–32

Walter, D. E. & S. Winterton. 2007. Keys and the crisis in taxonomy: extinction or reinvention? Annual Review of Entomology 52: 193–208.

♥

Credits

Bryolog is edited by chapter secretary Jake Bauer. Additional “thank you”s to Paul Wilson, our webmaster and contributing author, as well as Nickte Méndez, Brent Mishler, Chris Coshland, and Ken Schneider for their writing contributions.

♥ ♥ ♥