Wynne''s "Checklist revision" is a compilation of the taxa of benthic marine algae occurring in the broad area of the tropical and subtropical Western Atlantic Ocean. It thus covers the region from North Carolina to southern Brazil, which is the same domain as the 1960 flora of W. R. Taylor. It includes a total of 1,227 species of benthic marine algae: 763 species of red algae, 168 species of brown algae, and 296 species of green algae. There are also Notes in regard to specific information for some of the taxa treated, where appropriate. This publication includes an extensive bibliography of pertinent literature for the period following the publication of the first checklist in 1986. The Checklist includes a Table of geographic regions (countries in the region covered and coastal States of the southeastern USA) listing the literature. Five figures of the coastal regions treated are also provided.

William Randolph Taylor''s (1960) floristic treatment of the benthic marine algae known from the warm temperate United States south to Brazil remains one of the most important phycological contributions to the geographical area. That compilation including some 237 genera and 750 species became an indispensable tool for phycological professionals and students working within the region. After slightly more than a quarter of a century, and given numerous floristic additions, combinations, synonymies, etc., the usefulness of that work had diminished. Wynne, a close friend and colleague of William Randolph, published a checklist of the marine algae from the same geographic region (Wynne 1986). It was intended to be used as a companion to the 1960 work and indeed made the venerable reference more useful again. At that time, Wynne (1986), listed roughly 40% more genera and species than were reported in Taylor (1960). Michael Wynne''s "A checklist of benthic marine algae of the tropical and subtropical western Atlantic: first revision" again brings up-to-date the nomenclature and recent phycological occurrences in the region, providing another roughly 16% increase in species listed.
The organization is similar to the 1986 checklist. Algae are treated in systematic order with synonyms following in parentheses. The foot notes accompanying many of the species are particularly valuable. The note section leads the reader to the original literature dealing with nomenclatural changes or floristic additions, etc. Wynne''s work will also be valuable as a source of literature for papers dealing with the region''s flora on topics other than strictly floristic or nomenclatural such as life history or reproduction.
There are a few small problems dealing with presentation. For example there are several inconsistencies with indenting and species names (on one occasion) are set in different font size (e.g. the type set for species of Lithothamnion is smaller than for those of Mesophyllum). However, these are very minor quibbles which do not interfere with its usability. The checklist is a careful compilation of phycological studies in the region and provides a tremendous service to those of us who work with the flora. References
TAYLOR, W.R. ( 1960): Marine algae of the eastern tropical and subtropical coasts of the Americas. - Univ. Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 870 pp.
WYNNE, M.J. (1986). A checklist of benthic marine algae of the tropical and subtropical western Atlantic. - Can. J. Bot. 64: 2239-2281.

Nova Hedwigia 68, 1-2 (1999), p. 276: D.L. BALLANTINE, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico

Ce fascicule est la première révision de la check-list publiée par le meme auteur en 1986 (Wynne, M. J., 1986 -- A checklist of benthic marine algae of the tropical and subtropical western Atlantic. Canadian Journal of Botany 64: 2239-2281). La publication de 1986 était, d'une part, une mise à jour nomenclaturale, et d'autre part, un complétement au recensement des espèces de la zone couverte par l'ouvrage de Taylor (Taylor W. R., 1960 - Marine algae of the eastern troical and subtropical coasts of the Americas. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, ix + 870 p.). Il s'agissait donc déjà d'un complétement très appréciable de ce livre. Cette première révision de la check-list de 1986 est une compilation minutieuse de la littérature parue depuis et se rapportant soit à la zone concernée, soit à la systématique des espèces recensées dans cette zone. Il ne s'agit donc pas d'une simple liste de taxons mais d'une synthèse bibliographique très complète et d'une mise à jour extremement utile pour tous les taxinomistes s'intéressant aux algues marines benthiques. La synonymie est mise à jour, ainsi que la position systématique, et 579 notes renvoient aux références clef pour chaque taxon faisant l'objet d'une de ces notes. Ce nombre de notes renvoyant chacune à une ou plusieurs références illustre la somme de données monumentale rassemblée. C'est un outil qui fait gagner un temps considérable. J'ai un seul regret concernant la présentation de ce fascicule, d'est que les changements nomenclaturaux effectués par l'auteur ne soient pas l'objet d'un chapitre particulier ou, au moins, n'aient pas été listés, rassemblés ou indexés d'une manière quelconque. Cette check-list est, bien sur, indispensable pour les phycologues travaillant dans le secteur, mais elle era aussi très utile aux phycologues en général, compte tenu de la quantité d'information qu'elle contient. La bibliographie citée véhicule plus d'information que la simple taxinomie et nombre de références se rapportent à la biologie des espèces. On ne saurait trop encourager la production de synthèses comme celle-ci. Bruno de Reviers Cryptogamie, Algol. 1999, 20 (3): 285

It is fashionable in some scientific circles to disparage checklists of fauna and flora as pseudopublications because they seldom include original research. Such criticism fails to appreciate that these lists are essentially comprehensive reviews in a special format, which entail the synthesis and summary of sometimes huge amounts of literature and a great deal of painstaking attention to detail. For the ecologist, taxonomist, and anyone else who needs updated and accurate scientific nomenclature. they are a fundamental resource and a valuable time-saver. If the lists are accompanied by notes on taxonomy, history. and distribution? so much the better. The present checklist is the first revision of one published by the same author over a decade ago [Wynne (1986) Canadian Journal of Botany, 64: 2239-2281]. In assessing its merits. it is helpful to compare it with its predecessor. The 1986 list was compiled to update the nomenclature and records in W.R. Taylor's Marine Algae of the Eastern Tropical and Subtropical Coasts of the Americas (1960, University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. ix + 870 pp.) and covered the same territory as Taylor. from North Carolina to southern Brazil. Although it did not attempt to be a flora per se, it provided thirteen new nomenclatural combinations and listed synonyms that had become established in the 25 yr since Taylor's work. This first revision follows much the same format and scope of the original list, with nine nomenclatural changes being introduced. Although only 12 yr have elapsed since the original list. the need for revision is revealed in the 258 floristic publications of new records and taxonomic and nomenclatural changes that have appeared in the meantime or were missed in the earlier compilation. As before, genera within families and species within genera are listed alphabetically. Families, stated to be in the order used by most contemporary taxonomic treatments, appear to be in a mixture of an evolutionary hierarchy (e.g. Chordariales) and the strict alphabetical order favored by Yoshida et al. (1995. Japanese Journal of Phycology 43: 115-171) (e.g. Gigartinales) Nomenclatural authorities for the most part follow the current standard of Brummitt & Powell (1992, Authors of Plant Names. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 732 pp.), except for inserting spaces between initials and surnames, a departure from the standard that may have been imposed by the typesetter. Occasionally an inconsistency in abbreviation creeps in. such as having Kutzing spelled in full on pages 24 and 69. Athanasiadis on page 34, and Forsskal on page 69. Synonyms comprise those from the first list as well as more recent ones. which is desirable because taxonomic changes sometimes go back and forth. The list is enriched by 579 notes n taxonomy and sources of new records for the area, and it is in these notes that the new nomenclatural combinations are validated. As such, they are fairly well hidden, and I suggest that successive revisions mention nomenclatural changes in either an abstract or the Introduction. The comprehensive list of references comprises 878 entries. This is significantly longer than its predecessor (671 entries), even though many of the older references have been supplanted by more recent literature. Fully 55% of the entries are dated 1986 or later, that is, subsequent to the author's manuscript for the first checklist. It also is instructive to realise that some 18% of the entries pertain to regions outside the checklist's geographic scope, which reflects the author's scholarship in casting his net widely to ensure nomenclatural currency and accuracy. How well has the author succeeded in his task? It is sometimes daunting to keep up with all the nomenclatural and taxonomic changes within one's own area of specialisation, let alone all three major classes of seaweeds as a whole. The author had invited other senior phycologists to comment on the manuscript, and the literature list signals his awareness of the relevant publications. As one who is not so focused on the algae of this region, I found much that was new to me or had slipped my memory. One omission I noted, however. was the resurrection of Osmundea [Nam et al. (1994) Phycologia 33: 384-395], which affects the generic placement of Laurencia pinnatifida. Perhaps it is the author's personal judgement that this species should remain in Laurencia, and a note to that effect would have been in order. A feature that I would have liked to see, and hope that a future revision will include, is distributional records similar to those in the checklist for the North Atlantic by South & Tittley 1 1986, A Checklist and Distributional Index of the Benthic Marine Algae of the North Atlantic Ocean. Huntsman Marine Laboratory, St. Andrews, NB, and British Museum (Natural History), London. 76 pp.]. Although the excellent notes do give some information on distribution, this is a vast geographic area, and some indication as to how widespread or restricted species are within the region would be helpful not only to the phycologists who work there but to others as well. For example, I was intrigued by the inclusion of Desmarestia aculeata (p. 51), a familiar species of northeastern North America that is absent from adjacent southern coasts [see Schneider & Searles ( 1991 ) Seaweeds of the Southeastern United States. Duke University Press, Durham. xiv + 553 pp]. It was necessary to return to the previous checklist to find out that this was a deep-water record from Puerto Rico. Thus, the removal of older literature, while making the present reference list less cumbersome, nonetheless has its costs. Summarizing distribution records would be a way to include the older information. An innovation to this revised checklist is the inclusion of five maps of the geographic area under consideration. For Figure 1, which depicts the genera] range in the western Atlantic, the caption could have repeated the specific scope of "North Carolina to southern Brazil," as the north-south span of the map is Maine to Argentina, and Virginia is highlighted along with the American states actually included in the records. In the near-absence of specific distributional data, the purpose of the more detailed maps (Figs 2-5) is mystifying. Moreover, Figures 4 and 5 of the South American coast do not contribute information that is not already available in other figures, except for the naming of French Guiana in Figure 4. If these maps were intended to provide more detail of locations, to be cross-referenced to the cited literature, then at least the coastal states of Brazil should have been delineated and named, to balance those given for the USA. To leave the vast coastline of Brazil so featureless gives the erroneous impression that it is unexplored, despite the 84 recent phycological references listed for this country in Table 1 (far more than for any other area of comparable size) and a further 71 in the reference list that are either specifically about Brazil or by Brazilian authors. The typography is, on the whole, good, and my gimlet editorial eye detected relatively few spelling errors (e.g. teedei, p. 23; "Forrsk.," p. 65; "lectotyupe," p. 136; "Gracialariales." p. 144) or incorrect fonts [e g. harveyana (not italicized). p. 26]. Admittedly. this style of text is difficult to proofread. There are also a few discrepancies between the genders of generic and specific epithets, which future revisions should attempt to eliminate -- for example on page 67 the specific epithet of Trichosolen venezoleanus has been corrected from the 1986 version (T. venezoleana) to agree with the masculine stem "solen", but that of T. longipedicellata has not. Years of editorial experience have made me picky! It seems unlikely that any single contemporary phycologists will have the time, fortitude, or financial support to emulate Taylor and produce an updated flora spanning the same geographical range, although a consortium of phycologists may eventually do so. Meanwhile, the Wynne checklist provides a much-needed bridge between Taylor and the current scene. It is well produced, with merits that considerably outweigh the minor faults noted above. I hope its author will continue to produce further revisions. Carolyn Bird Phycologia (1998), vol. 37 (6), p. 489-490

The first edition of this checklist appeared in the Canadian Journal of Botany in 1986, and consisted entirely of a species list with numerous, mostly short, taxonomic and nomenclatural notes. This first revision is a much more substantial work. The most important literature is listed by country or state (for the USA), with several maps showing where these are. Almost half the volume is taken up by the checklist of red, green and brown algae, arranged in a classification scheme following that of recent texts. Synonyms are given where there have been name changes since the first edition, and the notes also concentrate on these changes but include items missed initially.
An enormous amount of information is covered in the notes at the end, listed by numbers in the checklist. As well as large numbers of short entries, there are also longer notes, amounting to short essays, on various relevant matters of taxonomic and nomenclatural interest. Among the topics covered are the relationship between Gracilaria and Polycavernosa and the status of Herposiphonia tenella relative to H. secunda. The notes are very comprehensive, and will be an important source of information for workers throughout the world, not just in the region covered. Many of them tell interesting stories about the ebb and flow of how particular genera and species have been regarded over the last few decades. The reference list covers all the notes, but can only be used as a bibliography for the region in combination with the first edition of the checklist, because references cited previously have generally been omitted from this list.
Several new combinations are proposed, mostly of subspecific taxa. These are helpfully printed in bold. The nomenclature appears to be as up to date as possible, with literature citations including works still in press at the time of publication. I was puzzled, however, by the continued use, without explanation, of the name Laurencia for species such as L. pinnatifida that have been segregated into Osmundea Nam (Nam et al., 1994). This seems odd in view of the adoption of Osmundea by Silva et al. (1996), a work that Wynne has naturally drawn extensively on for this revision of his checklist. Christine A. Maggs Eureopean Journal of Phycology, vol. 34, 1999 Cambridge University Press

Der Titel dieses Buches gibt den Inhalt im Wesentlichen bereits wieder. Es handelt sich um eine Artenliste der an den Küstenlinien des westlichen Atlantiks vorkommenden Meeresalgen, mit Einschränkung auf den subtropischen und tropischen Bereich. Sie umfaßt damit das Gebiet von North Carolina in den U.S.A. bis einschließlich Brasilien, wobei der Golf von Mexiko und die Karibik miteingeschlossen werden. Dies ist die erste Überarbeitung einer ursprünglichen Artenliste, die WYNNE im Jahre 1986 herausgab. Die Idee war es, einen aktuellen Katalog der im genannten Gebiet vorkommenden Rhodophyta, Phaeophyta und Chlorophyta zu erstellen, aufgrund des wachsenden Interesses an der Algensystematik allgemein und der Erstellung von Florenwerken für die Unterwasserwelt. Das wachsende Interesse hält nach wie vor an, daher war es nach 12 Jahren durchaus an der Zeit, das Ursprungswerk einer Revision zu unterziehen. Neben neuen Artenfunden hat sich gerade im Bereich der Taxonomie und Nomenklatur sehr viel verändert. In diesem Werk wird zunächst der geographische Raum anhand von verschiedenen Karten abgesteckt. In einer anschließenden Tabelle finden sich zu jedem der Teilgebiete (z.B. Georgia, Cuba, Trinidad oder Belize, etc.) Angaben über spezielle Literatur die sich mit der jeweiligen Benthosflora befaßt. Die Artenliste ist äußerst übersichtlich aufgebaut und nach systematischen Aspekten, nicht nach geographischen Kriterien, geordnet. Sie ist sowohl in Bezug auf die systematische Gliederung als auch in der Vollständigkeit auf dem aktuellen Wissensstand. Die allermeisten Arten sind mit einer Endnote versehen. Die Endnoten sind quasi als eigener Teil im Anschluß an die Artenliste angeführt. Darin finden sich wertvolle Informationen - meist sind es kontroverse Gesichtspunkte in der Diskussion um die systematische Eingliederung oder wichtige Literaturhinweise. Hie und da sogar Wissenswertes, das weniger sachdienlichen als unterhalterischen Wert hat. Die Tatsache, daß Anmerkungen in End- statt Fußnoten angeführt sind, trägt sehr zur Übersichtlichkeit der Artenliste bei. Auch wenn es anfangs unbequem erscheinen mag, immer wieder an das Ende des Buches blättern zu müssen, so lernt man doch bald die dadurch gewonnene klare Struktur zu schätzen.

Formell gibt es nichts zu beanstanden. Auf ein ordentliches Erscheinungsbild wurde durchaus Wert gelegt, auch wenn dem Laienbetrachter dieses Buch beim Aufschlagen erstmal langweilig erscheinen mag. Aber eine reine Artenliste ist nun mal kein Bildband. Insgesamt ist es ein sehr gutes Nachschlagewerk mit wertvollen Hinweisen und Literaturangaben. Da weder Bilder noch Beschreibungen vorhanden sind, wendet sich das Buch vor allem an Spezialisten. Es sollte in einer vernünftig sortierten Fachbibliothek auf jeden Fall vorhanden sein.
A. Stein
Berichte der Bayerischen Botanischen Gesellschaft, Band 71, Juli 2001