Observation 160220: Xanthomendoza ulophyllodes (Räsänen) Søchting, Kärnefelt & S. Kondr.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
And then you have Jim Bennett
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2014-02-23 00:20:06 MST (-0700)

coming back with names that confuse things even more! Ah well, we are in good company. There are better men than us who are also occasionally stumped by this group.

I am confused by these.
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2014-02-23 00:14:08 MST (-0700)

I keep encountering Xanthomendoza that doesn’t fit the boundaries we established in earlier conversations. Barring X.fallax with its “bird nest” soralia, we figured that my region should have X.weberi and X.ulophyllodes. X.weberi should be a colonial species too (being eastern equivalent of X.fulva – like in observation 89145), and X.ulophyllodes should have very long and pronounced rhizines, protruding from under the thallus that lifts its ends to “show off” those rhizines (like in observation 88909). This one fits neither description. Considering the battle between the “lumpers” and the “splitters” – who can say what it is? On the other hand, J.Bennett confirmed similar specimen (kinda), without protruding rhizines, to be X.ulophyllodes (observation 96029), so let’s call this one the same.

Gorgeous specimen!
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2014-02-22 23:59:25 MST (-0700)

Should probably keep my big mouth shut, but… I was under the impression that X. fulva / X. weberi (X. weberi is the correct name out east, I think, X. fulva is strictly western?) is a colonial species that never produces beautiful obvious big old rosettes like this. I would’ve bet on X. ulophyllodes instead. What do you think, Andrew?

Created: 2014-02-22 15:22:21 MST (-0700)
Last modified: 2014-05-29 23:02:39 MDT (-0600)
Viewed: 40 times, last viewed: 2016-07-14 10:54:46 MDT (-0600)
Show Log