Notes: I went to the rock where I found the Lasallia of observation 196802 and make a more detailed analysis looking for other fertile specimens. For my surprise, I found many more as the photos attached show. I just made the microscopy of a new specimen and my previous data were confirmed (later on I will upload some photos). The question is: the dimensions obtained for the spores are within those given in the reference for L. hispanica in what refers to the length, but the width those not:
I got for the specimen of observation 196802:
Me = 54.1 × 34.8 um; Qe = 1.6
and the range for Lasallia hispanica given in the reference is:
40-65 x (17-)20-25 um.
On the other hand, I search for information about the spores of L. pustulata, the other species known to exist here and by far the most common, with no success. At the end, this could be the fertile version of the latter species, that though rare may exist here.
I just check that the British Flora gives the dimension for the spores of l. pustulata:
28-70 × 18-34 um.
This means that I got for the average of the spores width of my specimen the maximum given there. Anyway closer than for L. hispanica.
Here are the dimension of the spores for the specimen in this observation:
(40.4) 43.5 – 69.8 (76.8) x (19) 27.6 – 42.1 (43.2) µm
Q = (1.1) 1.4 – 2 (2.2) ; N = 43
Me = 57.6 × 34.7 µm ; Qe = 1.7.
|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||6.45||1||(zaca)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Created: 2015-02-17 16:41:00 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2015-02-18 16:32:14 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 30 times, last viewed: 2017-02-20 01:40:56 CST (-0500)