Fissidens dubius
species of plant
Fissidens dubius, commonly known as the rock-pocket moss, is a species of moss belonging to the family Fissidentaceae. First described by Palisot de Beauvois in 1805 from material collected in Philadelphia, it is a relatively large moss growing up to 5 cm (2 in) tall that forms loose to dense mats on calcareous substrates. The species is characterised by its serrated leaf margins, pale border of thick-walled cells, and typically dioicous reproduction. It has a broad global distribution across Europe, North and South America, Asia, North Africa, and New Zealand, occurring in various habitats from lowlands to alpine zones, particularly in shaded locations on basic soils and rocks. While morphologically similar to F. adianthoides, F. dubius is distinguished by its smaller leaf cells and irregularly thickened leaf tips. The species is classified as Least Concern due to its stable populations and absence of major threats.
Taxonomy
The species was first described by the French botanist Palisot de Beauvois in 1805 from material he had collected in the United States, probably in Philadelphia. The specific epithet dubius means "doubtful" in Latin. In Beauvois's initial description, the only distinctive characteristic noted was the serrated leaf margin.
The species has several synonyms: F. cristatus Wils.
“Fissidens dubius” enters the record as species of plant. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Fissidens, dubius and species can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Fissidens dubius” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Fissidens, dubius and species provides the most credible route into that argument.
Datasets, specimens, observations and peer-reviewed methods provide the appropriate test for the technical claims summarized here. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 29, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q1723115. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1805.
A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Fissidens dubius”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Fissidens dubius primary sources, Fissidens dubius archive and Fissidens research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Fissidens dubius”?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Fissidens dubius” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.