When: 2009-05-14
Collection location: Baie-Sainte-Marguerite, Parc du Saguenay, Quebec, Canada [Click for map]
Who: Chris Parrish (kitparrish)
Notes:
Identification: For distinguishing P. leucophlebia from P. aphthosa, Hinds and Hinds (2007, p.356) place the emphasis on the veins or lack thereof on the undersurface (and other characters as well). In their key, both species go to the same place, and then P. leucophlebia is described as “Lower surface with distinct, grayish brown, marginally paler veins.” For P. aphthosa, they say “Lower surface lacking distinct veins, dark centrally with paler margins.” Brodo (2001, p.505) makes the same distinction: for aphthosa, “lower surface of thallus uniformly black to dark brown, abruptly turning white close to the margins, much as in P. malacea (plate 305).” In fact, the common name of P. malacea is “veinless pelt.” There are supporting photos of the two patterns in Brodo.
Photos: Photos 45327 and 45328 were taken at 9:19:43 and 9:22:39 and go together. Photo 45326 was taken at 10:12:06, so it was found a little farther down the track. All of them were in the same general area, along about 500 m of level trail on a forested north-facing slope just above the river.
Common name: veined freckle-pelt
Species Lists
Images
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 5.52 | 1 | (kitparrish) | |||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
-0.85 | -28.22% | |||||||
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 5.52 | 1 | (kitparrish) | |||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
0.85 | 28.22% | |||||||
Comments
Add CommentCreated: 2009-06-03 01:46:35 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2010-09-28 23:14:41 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 283 times, last viewed: 2018-04-12 07:09:06 CDT (-0400)
Show Log
vsleucophlebia nightmares…I was stumped by this one and resorted to the expert. How sure were you that all three photos were the same lichen?? :) Trevor’s comments are:
I’ve taken a quick look, with the following results: image 45328 is almost certainly P. aphthosa, though if so it must surely be growing in cool, humid conditions; image 45327 I’m not sure about, though the lobe outline is wrong, looks more like P. conspersa in ed., though I’d would need to see a close-up of the cephalodia, also the lower surface; image 45326 could be P. aphthosa s. str., though it’s a little too membranous to my taste, and the margins are a little too abruptly upturned. It reminds me of some material I once collected on the Bay of Fundy, in New Brunswick. I haven’t had a chance to study that material carefully, but at the time I remember thinking it was probably undescribed.
He might not appreciate me sharing those comments, based as they were on a cursory glance, but I thought it was excellent proof of just how difficult this group is!!