Observation 56869: Cladonia pyxidata (L.) Hoffm.
When: 2009-12-29
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

29% (1)
Recognized by sight
29% (1)
Recognized by sight
47% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: large granules/microsquamules on cups

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Let’s hear it for CNALH!
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2011-01-01 11:28:44 PST (-0800)

I agree, it’s becoming a superb resource. I looked up several species of lichens endemic or nearly endemic to northern Florida, and discovered most of them had been found in a few locations in Ocala NF. Armed with detailed location information, I had no trouble locating superb populations of most of them. What an amazing thing to be able to do! And so easy.

Data is still sparse, occasionally grossly inaccurate, and taxonomy is questionable on the tough groups (especially ones with significant recent work). But this is to be expected, I think, especially at this relatively early stage. It will be interesting to see how it grows. Will it be embraced by the lichenological community? I wonder if there are any plans of doing something similar for mycology? The code they use is shared with similar databases for bryophytes and vascular plants, I believe, too. So there’s no reason it can’t be adapted to mycology in the broader sense.

CNALH dynamic lichen checklists
By: Chris Parrish (kitparrish)
2011-01-01 10:11:21 PST (-0800)

CNALH has produced a remarkable new tool capable of producing lichen checklists for any locality in North America.

For example, in order to create a checklist of the species of Cladonia known from within 100 miles of Shoreline, Washington, do the following:

1. Go to the home page of CNALH.
2. Click on “Dynamic Checklist” in the lefthand column.
3. On the resulting Google map, navigate to Shoreline, Washington (above Seattle) and click on that location (a red sticker appears). Under the optional “Taxon Filter” menu in the NE corner select “Cladoniaceae.” Again in the NE corner, click on “Submit Coordinates.”
4. The system produces a list of 34 species of Cladonia known to occur within 100 miles of the Shoreline locality.
5. In the box in the NE corner, click on “Display as Images” and then on “Rebuild List.” Each species in the checklist is illustrated by a photo, if one is available to the system. In this case, only three of the 34 species are missing a photo.

As another test case, I clicked on Kananaskis Country in SW Alberta and generated a checklist of 482 species of lichens known from within 180 miles of that locality. The system will again generate an illustrated checklist with photos for many of these species.

High marks to the developers at CNALH. This is a fascinating new tool for exploring the distribution of lichens.

Still stumped
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2010-12-31 13:37:23 PST (-0800)

Probably same as observation 61485. But you can now see (at full resolution) that it has fairly large corticate granules/microscales instead of fine powdery soredia. That rules out C. carneola for sure. The large “granules” point to C. pyxidata or one of the C. borealis group. The latter should have obviously red dots or apothecia around the rim of the cups, so I guess this must be C. pyxidata. Looks different from what I’m used to seeing, and I’ve never seen those sorediate squamules on C. pyxidata before. (I can’t verify that it’s never supposed to have it, though…)

By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2010-12-05 12:52:46 PST (-0800)

Yikes! Is this just a poorly-developed specimen of something common like C. chlorophaea, or is this a dwarf species, I don’t know, like C. humilis? I’d guess the former. But then you have to ask if it will “grow up” to have fine soredia (e.g. C. fimbriata), granular isidioid soredia (e.g. C. chlorophaea group), or full-on corticate microsquamules (e.g. C. pyxidata)… And don’t forget the possibility that this is moist and thus masking the yellowish tint from presence of usnic acid, in which case it could be C. carneola. The sorediate squamules feel like they should be important. I saw that recently on C. pleurota, and I think C. carneola can do that, too. Brodo (Lichens of North America) says C. chlorophaea does NOT do that. And I’m fairly certain C. pyxidata doesn’t, either. I don’t see red apothecia, ruling out most usnic cupped species… but not C. carneola.

In other words… I have no clue. Odds favor C. carneola. Very slightly. Maybe.

The best test to verify or dismiss C. carneola is P (paraphenylenediamine) but that’s hard to get, only for the hard core! (C. carneola lacks fumarprotocetraric acid, so should be P-; most other choices mentioned above if not all would be clear P+ orange-red.) The KC test (drop of lye followed by drop of bleach) is the next best option. But it is very tricky to characterize on these things. Do a search on the Hutten Technique (I think that’s it) — there are various ways of leaching out usnic acid onto filter paper or glass slides, where the reaction will be much more clear.

Hey Jason….
By: Tim Sage (T. Sage)
2010-12-05 12:34:26 PST (-0800)

I know you know this one….

Created: 2010-10-27 09:25:20 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2010-12-31 14:03:38 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 112 times, last viewed: 2016-10-20 13:06:29 PDT (-0700)
Show Log