Introduction. Following on from work on the European bryophyte Red List, the taxonomically and nomenclaturally updated spreadsheets used for that project have been expanded into a new checklist for the bryophytes of Europe. Methods. A steering group of ten European bryologists was convened, and over the course of a year, the spreadsheets were compared with previous European checklists, and all changes noted. Recent literature was searched extensively. A taxonomic system was agreed, and the advice and expertise of many European bryologists sought. Key results. A new European checklist of bryophytes, comprising hornworts, liverworts and mosses, is presented. Fifteen new combinations are proposed. Conclusions. This checklist provides a snapshot of the current European bryophyte flora in 2019. It will already be out-of-date on publication, and further research, particularly molecular work, can be expected to result in many more changes over the next few years.

The moss flora of Europe and Macaronesia comprises 278 genera, 1292 species, 46 subspecies and 118 varieties. Of the total 1292 species, 53 are confined to Macaronesia and 21 are thought to be non-native. The checklist was derived from those for the various component countries and regions. It is based on results published up to the end of 2005. Subspecies and varieties are included; hybrids are omitted. The taxonomic hierarchy is based on one published by Goffinet & Buck in 2004. While it has been strongly influenced by results of modern molecular methods, there are still many remaining uncertainties, even at family level. Because of these uncertainties, taxonomic innovation has generally been avoided. There are four new combinations and one change of status.

Premise: Bryophytes form a major component of terrestrial plant biomass, structuring ecological communities in all biomes. Our understanding of the evolutionary history of hornworts, liverworts, and mosses has been significantly reshaped by inferences from molecular data, which have highlighted extensive homoplasy in various traits and repeated bursts of diversification. However, the timing of key events in the phylogeny, patterns, and processes of diversification across bryophytes remain unclear.Methods: Using the GoFlag probe set, we sequenced 405 exons representing 228 nuclear genes for 531 species from 52 of the 54 orders of bryophytes. We inferred the species phylogeny from gene tree analyses using concatenated and coalescence approaches, assessed gene conflict, and estimated the timing of divergences based on 29 fossil calibrations.Results: The phylogeny resolves many relationships across the bryophytes, enabling us to resurrect five liverwort orders and recognize three more and propose 10 new orders of mosses. Most orders originated in the Jurassic and diversified in the Cretaceous or later. The phylogenomic data also highlight topological conflict in parts of the tree, suggesting complex processes of diversification that cannot be adequately captured in a single gene‐tree topology.Conclusions: We sampled hundreds of loci across a broad phylogenetic spectrum spanning at least 450 Ma of evolution; these data resolved many of the critical nodes of the diversification of bryophytes. The data also highlight the need to explore the mechanisms underlying the phylogenetic ambiguity at specific nodes. The phylogenomic data provide an expandable framework toward reconstructing a comprehensive phylogeny of this important group of plants.

Molecular analyses have consistently evidenced the phylogenetic heterogeneity of Orthotrichum Hedw., and suggested the need to segregate the species with superficial stomata in a separate genus. A recent proposal has been made to accommodate the monoicous species with such stomata in the genus Dorcadion Adans. ex Lindb., which is, however, an illegitimate name according to the current Code of nomenclature of algae, fungi and plants. Consequently a new name is required, and the generic name Lewinskya F.Lara, Garilleti & Goffinet is proposed. New combinations are made for all the species included in the new genus. Given the long history of the genus Orthotrichum and the similarities between this genus and Lewinskya, the morphological and geographic circumscriptions of both genera are provided to define them accurately. The taxa remaining in Orthotrichum s.str. are also listed.