|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||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||6.00||1||(Andrew)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I can post my photos of the fertile P.millegrana on MO too if needed for reference (I mean not the specimen on this page, which are questionable at this point, but the ones I refer to below – on my website and more in my files).
No, I didn’t post that species on MO. I have some on my site at http://www.wisconsinmushrooms.com/PhysciaMillegrana.html Again, my best ID would probably reach 90-95%, but never 100%. So if what you see is different species, feel free to rip me a new one – I’m not going to be offended.
Good, that helps things make sense. If Trevor Goward has never seen it fertile, and then all of a sudden you show us a dozen specimens abundantly fertile, the old doubts naturally begin grow! But if it is as common as you say, and you are only showing us the odd things, then I’m totally okay with it. Were you the one that posted the damp one which Ernie Brodo identified for us? He made it clear that anything like this should be called P. millegrana. So I think that the answer to your implicit question is “yes, this is a variable species”, and that all these things are probably just extreme forms of the same thing.
Physcia millegrana is one of the most common species here – just about every other tree along the road has it. It’s also one I’m pretty sure about being able to identify on the fly. Usually they look different from the specimen in question here – but I figure lichens of the same species CAN look different too. Now I regret I didn’t pour water on this one since P.millegrana looks like a miniature greenish vegetable when wet.
If I only knew in advance what the problem lichen will look like. I used to assume that I’ll identify most of my finds just by the look of them, and where I’ll fail – somebody else will kindly provide a name. Now I know otherwise – little devils are hard to crack without some extra clues. Just like most mushrooms should be picked up to at least get a spore print, I’ll have to do more with lichens (get picture of the underside for starters). I can also pick samples and get a hold of one lichenologist I know participates in local mushroom forays. I also found some NaOH – you said it should be as good as KOH. As far as sending you samples – I’ll be glad to send you some, if I only knew what interests you. I think most lichens will do just fine for a few weeks in my room so I can send several specimen at ones.
I just have an uncontrollable urge to get out my hand lens and look at the screen up close! :) No, by all means keep ‘em coming. It’s possible that seeing enough of these things, and other species of Physcia in the same area, we will be able to increase our confidence in this one by process of averaging and elimination. Your photos are great, this is just past my limited skill. Especially since I’m unfamiliar with this species, having only seen it once or twice and never fertile.
Now, if you are serious about this stuff, there are definitely additional steps you could take! Collecting and preserving and sending to a local lichenologist is always a great idea. Hell, I’d love to see this stuff in person, even though I’m just a random guy. (Vitaly has sent me little boxes of stuff before, and that’s always a blast, because otherwise I have no opportunity to see stuff from Alabama. And I’ve sent some of it on to the lichenologist at Auburn after I’m done.) Also, as you learn the distinguish isidia from soredia from lobules, you might return to problem specimens like this and cast new light on them.
“lobules” are minute flattened protuberances
“isidia” are even smaller granular to cylindrical protuberances, typically shiny due to presence of cortex, otherwise alike in color to the rest of the surface
“soredia” are as small or smaller than isidia, “soft”, cottony or otherwise different in texture and color from the rest of the surface
You might need magnification to distinguish the types in some cases, but the shininess should generally be apparent even to the unaided eye, at least with experience.
That’s the best I can do with my camera. The things were tiny and looked furry (I guess because of soredia?). My knowledge of the lichen body parts is very superficial. My best hope is that someone out there have something similar that was identified by the pros – That’s why I’m throwing this stuff at you guys. I’ll accept any recomendations as far as what else I can do to achieve better chance at ID (like keeping dry specimen for future study maybe?).
I just cant make out detail. There’s clearly something going on in a major way at the microscopic scale: does it have isidia? soredia? pustules? lobules? The black, pruinose apothecia can only be Physcia, though, I’m sure of it.
Created: 2011-04-26 19:55:16 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2012-12-12 16:20:09 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 62 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 04:55:50 CDT (-0400)