|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||11.48||2||(Andrew,jason)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Jim Bennett crossed my X.hypofusca and wrote X.tasmanica on the specimen. I have X.tasmanica crossed in my lists based on something that I read prior, and replaced with X.hypofusca. However, looking in CNALH, there is not much about X.hypofusca, but X.tasmanica has a good description (from Sonoran flora I guess). What’s up with this – did it change again in the last couple of years, or did I goof up somewhere?
Non-isidiate, lower surface black, medulla K+ blood red – mostly, although some areas are orangish. That concerns me, because another identifying trait – lobe size – that’s supposed to help separate this species from X.angustiphylla is unreliable, with lobes ranging widely in size depending on where they are on the thallus.
Created: 2015-07-30 20:23:44 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2016-03-10 00:06:33 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 48 times, last viewed: 2017-09-03 16:01:02 CDT (-0400)