Observation 44379: Conotrema urceolatum (Ach.) Tuck.
When: 2010-04-11
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: On upper bole of red maple on mesic slope around 3750 feet. The coiled spores might not be typical; they suggest Scoliciosporum at first, but the perithecioid apothecia rule out that genus immediately.

Images

83369
83367
83368
83370
apothecial sections in water at 100x
83371
apothecial sections in water at 100x in cross-polarized light
83372
exciple and asci with spores in water at 400x
83373
long multi-septate spores coiled in ascus in water at 1000x

Proposed Names

87% (1)
Eye3 Eyes3
Used references: “Ozark Keys”, Harris & Ladd, 2004.
“Lichens of North America”, Brodo et al., 2001.
Based on microscopic features: spores, etc.
Based on chemical features: K-

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
I’m convinced
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2010-04-18 18:38:02 EDT (-0400)

I only have access to the abstract, but the paper you cited is very convincing. MO follows Esslinger’s checklist of North American lichens for lichen taxonomy (my arbitrary decision). Normally Esslinger keeps up with the latest research, and updates names even if he personally disagrees. Yet there is no mention of Stictis at all in his list. I’ve inquired about this apparent deficiency. In the meantime I’ve deprecated Conotrema in favor of Stictis.

Thanks for pointing this out!

Whose authority?
By: Robert Sasata (Sasata)
2010-04-18 10:54:45 EDT (-0400)

I guess it depends whose authority MO follows. But, fwiw, Stictis is current in Dictionary of the Fungi (2008). BTW, wanted to say thanks for all of the awesome lichen pics you’ve uploaded here. If I live long enough I’ll write Wikipedia articles about all of them :)

Taxonomy gives me a head-ache
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2010-04-18 09:33:41 EDT (-0400)

Harris & Ladd 2004 mentioned this, but they kept it in Conotrema because they thought it sufficiently morphologically distinct to warrant its own genus. But if you do that, then I’ll bet Stictis needs to be split up radically, too. What do you think?

Should this be Stictis urceolatum (Ach.) Gilenstam ?
By: Robert Sasata (Sasata)
2010-04-18 01:24:30 EDT (-0400)

per Wedin, M; Doring, H; Konberg, K, et al. (2005). “Generic delimitations in the family Stictidaceae (Ostropales, Ascomycota): the Stictis-Conotrema problem” Lichenologist 37(1):67-75?

Created: 2010-04-17 22:18:05 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2010-04-17 22:18:06 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 116 times, last viewed: 2016-09-05 13:13:34 EDT (-0400)
Show Log