Observation 130825: Peltigera praetextata (Flörke ex Sommerf.) Zopf
When: 2013-03-24
Who: zaca
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Recently I got a book (see the reference below) about Peltigerales in the Iberian Peninsula. In particular, this book describes the existing species of Peltigera. According to it there are 23 species of that genus in the Iberian Peninsula, 14 of which in Portugal. I divided these in two groups, the first from places where I already made observations, and the second group with the remaining. Here they are:
1st group: P. canina, P. collina, P. didactyla, P. horizontalis, P. membranacea, P. neckeri, P. polydactylon, P. praetextata, P. rufescens;
2nd group: P. britanica, P. elisabethe, P. hymenina, P. malacea, P. neopolydactylon.

I went back to this location, which was the first where I observed a Peltigera about two years ago, and take new pictures to the “large carpet” (still existing there) of the Pertigera sp. considered in observation 64685. At the time and from the comparison with other specimens in subsequent observations some doubts appear in relation to its classification. From the potential candidates (which include, according to Jason in a comment to observation 80959, P. membranacea, P. monticola, P. ponojensis and P. pratextata), following the reference, only the last one has a distrubution that includes the location of this observation. The first one, though exist in Portugal has a more northern distribution, and the other two are only reported from Spain.

Proposed Names

47% (2)
Used references: Flora Liquenológica Ibérica. Peltigerales: Lobariaceae, Nephromataceae, Peltigeraceae,
Ana Rosa Burgaz e Isabel Martínez, 2003,
Sociedad Española de Liquenología, Vol. 1, SEL. Murcia,
61 pp dibujos, ISSN: 1696-0513.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Well …
By: zaca
2013-03-25 15:48:58 PDT (-0700)

This is not the first the first time that the variability of P. praetextata surprises me (us?). This is far repeated in my previous comments about this genus, to “clear” my inaptitude for classifying specimens in this genus. In this case, as you mentioned in your comment, there are some characters that “guide” us to P. membranacea, that was my initial classification for it. On the other hand, I have no reasons to doubt about the correction of the data in the cited reference, but knowing that the are so few people here working on this field (lichenology, I mean) I will not put the hands on the fire for it (to have reports it is necessary to have people making reports). All this came to my mind before I decided to go to the place again and took some more detailed photos than usually, to care for the possible existence of more than one species mixed up and to have some more insights for this particular specimens. I hope this was not a waste of time.
Finally, I appreciate very much your comment as if it was a brand new observation, because you are able to infer from the photos “things” that I could not imagine to be possible. Thanks, Jason, for your opinion.

Excellent documentation
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2013-03-25 15:09:17 PDT (-0700)

If we can’t reach a confident ID, it’s not because of the photos being lacking!

I don’t remember my earlier comments, but I’d consider P. praetextata and P. membranacea again. The last photos in particular are suggestive of P. membranacea with the pure white lower surface, very distinct veins, tomentose rhizines, bullate almost smooth surface… But Taken together, I’d have to vote for P. praetextata. That seems to be the conclusion you reach based on your new treatment of Iberian Peltigera, too.

In fact, the only thing “odd” about this material (as compared to material I’ve seen of P. praetextata from North America) is the bullate surface. But that should be within expected variation of the species.

Created: 2013-03-25 12:59:46 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2013-03-25 15:09:43 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 37 times, last viewed: 2016-10-27 00:47:38 PDT (-0700)
Show Log