World reports of Myxomycetes

Please note: The world reports project is a work in progress.
At present information have been extracted from almost 2200 publications.



Worldwide reports:



Reports from the Nordic and Baltic countries:

For the convenience of northern European myxomycetologists (including myself), reports from the Nordic and Baltic countries have been given their own search facility and presentation.



This project aims at providing an overview of published reports of Myxomycetes worldwide, and thus readily accessible information of the distribution of Myxomycete species.

Information on world distibutions of Myxomycetes is principally available from two sources:

  • One is published literature. During the last decades the amount Myxomycete literature has grown almost exponentially, so for any particular purpose scanning of the whole body of publications is impracticable. Generally information is therefore drawn from monographic works such as Martin & Alexopoulos 1969 and Farr 1976 or from compilations of regional reports, f. ex. Ladó 1994 and Ndiritu et al 2009.
  • The second source is the database of GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility). This database is an aggregation of information from numerous local data collections, primarily herbarium registrations (which are often accessible at their respective institutional websites), but also collections of more specific nature, such as project databases. However, as far as I am aware, it does not include literature reports, unless included in one of the afore mentioned collections.

This leaves a gap of information, which includes more recent literature reports not (yet) comitted to GBIF or too new to be included in the literature sources mentioned above.
The present project aims at filling this gab, as far as literature is available, and thus supplementing the two other sources.


  • The lists have been compiled from literature and should in no way be considered as official checklists.
  • The lists are uncritical, i.e., with a few exceptions, no attempt has been made to evaluate the relevance or probability of the published reports, nor have older reports been corrected if later revisions have proved them to be incorrect.
  • The lists does not pretend to be complete. In many cases, in fact, they are rather fragmentary. So, for serious work the relevant literature should be consulted.

Synonomy and nomenclature follows Lado, C. (2005 and later). This means that taxonomic levels below species have not been treated. Information on infraspecific taxa in the reports is given on the detail pages.