Observation 113990: Canomaculina pilosa (Stizenb.) Elix & Hale
When: 2012-10-21
No herbarium specimen

Notes: On a hardwood: Geoffroea decorticans, very thin bark.

Thallus: foliose light green white, lower surface white (but other details of lower surface difficult to see). Cilia at margins. Appears very slightly sorediated on top. Closely appressed so bark. 1cm-4cm across.

Proposed Names

-5% (2)
Recognized by sight
28% (1)
Recognized by sight: (see comment)

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: nastassja (Nastassja Noell)
2012-10-21 01:44:26 PDT (-0700)

Not yet. Just did a preliminary scan…

Will go back and get sample :) and test with NaOH…

And I put my foot in my mouth about Mycotaxon not being accessible! Way to go Cybertruffle!

Super thank you Jason, always :)

More photos…
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-10-21 01:19:19 PDT (-0700)
Found it at last!
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-10-21 01:13:49 PDT (-0700)

Canomaculina pilosa (Stiz.) Elix & Hale, Mycotaxon 29:240. 1987.

Thallus adnate to loosely adnate, 5-10 cm wide. Lobes subirregular, apically rounded, 5-10 mm wide, densely ciliate; cilia tapered, simple or commonly furcate. Upper surface greenish-grey, white effigurate-maculate, submarginally sorediate; soralia orbicular, confluent at maturity. Medulla white. Lower surface mostly black, moderate to densely rhizinate; rhizines black, of two types, either thick and up to 5 mm long or thin and less than 1 mm long, simple or furcate. Apothecia and pycnidia not seen. Chemistry: Cortex K+ yellow (atranorin); medulla K-, C-, KC- (aliphatic acids).

Canomaculina pilosa, the most common species of Canomaculina in Curitiba, is here cited for the first time for Paraná State. It is found on trunks and branches of trees in open woodland, streets, avenues and parks. The sorediate upper cortex and the negative results for medullary tests characterise this species.

(See http://www.scielo.br/...; of course it says nothing about pustulose soralia… maybe we’re on the wrong track afterall? Do you have a sample? You might check for maculae under a scope or hand lens.)

By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-10-21 01:08:50 PDT (-0700)

Here’s the page:


But it just establishes Parmotrema pilosa as the type species for Canomaculina… a genus which has now been sunk, apparently, anyway. There is no description there. It was first published somewhere in 1888-1890. But even were we to find that description, it would probably be useless, since they wouldn’t have known to distinguish it from any of the 18 additional species that were subsequently described in that group(!) We need to find a paper for a similar, but more recently-described species. That will indirectly describe C. pilosa in a useful manner. I struck out, though. Sigh.

But hey! Found a paperyou might be interested in: checklist of a region of Cordoba province. Look for “Argentina – South Gran…” in the same place I’ve uploaded all the other papers. (Gotta be careful not to post a link on the web, or I’ll get in serious trouble! :) Check out the bibliography of that paper, too. Several other papers that might be interesting… I just can’t access them, sigh.

Me too, in so many cases
By: nastassja (Nastassja Noell)
2012-10-21 00:48:32 PDT (-0700)

This is why there should be some central repository for current species descriptions thats free to access… why they’re bound up in journals that are awesome, no doubt, but aren’t accessible just doesn’t make sense.

I think we’d find it in here:

Canomaculino Elix & Hale, Mycotaxon 29: 239. 1987.

But neither of my schools’ databases subscribe to Mycotaxon…

Really wish we could locate a description of the species
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-10-21 00:26:35 PDT (-0700)

That would make me feel much better.

By: nastassja (Nastassja Noell)
2012-10-21 00:20:01 PDT (-0700)

Amazing digging…!!
I’ll put my bets in with Canomaculina pilosa, I definately need to chem test it and pry it off and look under at the rhizines and underside… thanks for your help Jason :)

Yeah, the Parmotrema s. lat. genera
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-10-21 00:12:20 PDT (-0700)

sometimes lack rhizines near the margin. You can kinda see them hiding deeper underside in the side-on view. It also would looks entirely pale underneath in these photos, but I’ll guarantee it is dark, probably even black, toward the interior.

Alas, according to that paper, Myelochroa isn’t really an option, as the only species they found in the city has isidia. I’m going with Parmotrema now. (Sorry, I can’t find the official combination for Canomaculina pilosa in Parmotrema, but it must have been moved back in there by now…)

Couldn’t see the rhizines, they must be deeper in there…
By: nastassja (Nastassja Noell)
2012-10-21 00:03:09 PDT (-0700)

From what little I could tell.

M. aurulenta looks spot on, wow, you’re good. I gotta do chem tests and check that medulla (excited for yellow if its there!

Atranorin-type gray? Oooh, there was a touch of greenish blue, kinda like Parmelia looks… and damnit, I forgot my UV lamp, just remembered now… haha, oh well, at least I have extra buttons… :)

I’ll check with NaOH later this week :)

By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-10-20 23:55:43 PDT (-0700)

See photo “d” on this page:


Not great, but at least it could be… This species is well-known for being very pollution tolerant, apparently. Also, I scoured the Sipman world key a bit more closely, and whaddaya know, there are in fact one or two species that he notes have pustulose soralia. Perhaps this is another? (I can’t find proof one way or the other.)

Shoot, don’t even know the genera well enough…
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-10-20 23:20:31 PDT (-0700)

Some options are Hypotrachyna (any forked rhizines?, these pustulose soralia are common in this genus), Myelochroa (medulla somewhat yellowish? simple short rhizines, also can have pustulose soralia like M. aurulenta, maybe some southern species have conspicuous cilia like this?), maybe Parmotrema? (I don’t know any with pustulose soralia… although I did see one tiny specimen in southern California once that I couldn’t identify, but the lichenologist I sent it to lost it! I won’t mention any names… :) Was this clearly atranorin-type gray or was there a chance it had a greenish/yellowish usnic acid tint to it? Also possible it had lichexanthone instead of atranorin if gray (K- UV+ strong yellow).

Created: 2012-10-20 22:02:41 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2012-10-20 23:56:49 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 74 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 15:48:42 PDT (-0700)
Show Log