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.
|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||6.42||1||(jason)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
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!
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 :)
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 20:18:05 MDT (-0600)
Last modified: 2010-04-17 20:18:06 MDT (-0600)
Viewed: 140 times, last viewed: 2017-06-10 12:29:42 MDT (-0600)