Observation 67880: Hypogymnia imshaugii Krog
When: 2011-05-21
Who: Byrain
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Found on a fallen coniferous stick.

Proposed Names

28% (1)
Recognized by sight
61% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
PPD might not be necessary to distinguish imshaugii and amplexa
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2011-05-23 13:37:19 CDT (-0500)

According to the “100 species” paper (where amplexa is described), H. amplexa only has physodic acid. According to the Sonoran Flora, H. imshaugii can have various combos of the following, almost all of which result in P+o reaction (but not necessarily):

diffractaic K- C- KC- CK+o P-
physodic K- C- KC+p CK- P-
physodalic K~y C- KC- CK- P+o
protocetraric K~y C- KC+p CK- P+r

In other words, try CK first, probably will be negative, but if not (diffractaic CK+o is very strong and noticeable) you know you have imshaugii.

Assuming CK-, then try K (looking for a subtle yellowish/brownish color) then after about 15-30 seconds, add C. Look for a fairly rapid but quickly fading pinkish-purplish reaction. If any K~y or if NOT KC+p, then again, you’ve got imshaugii.

The P test is obviously a great deal more foolproof. (Unless your imshaugii contains exclusively diffractaic acid!… they don’t mention that possibility, do they?)

[I can send you both PPD and K if you like. I’ll be going in to town sometime this week; give me your address, and I’ll pop some in the mail.]

Interior picture
By: Byrain
2011-05-23 13:04:46 CDT (-0500)

I’ve added an picture of the interior and its white. I found a description at http://www.eol.org/pages/19367765 & http://www.eol.org/pages/2858700 and it seems the best way to tell them apart is chemistry, H. imshaugii having a P+ Orange medulla and H. amplexa having a P- medulla. Would I be correct in thinking the medulla is the white interior? And based off the public description of Lichen sp., paraphenylenediamine is not the easiest chemical to get. So I’ll hold onto this sample for now and test the reaction when I have the chance.

It also says H. imshaugii should have evenly branched lobes, shallowly saucer-shaped apothecia and at smooth to weakly rugose central lobes and similar peripheral lobes. Which to me this lichen seems to have, so I think your ID looks promising.

Lastly, thanks again with the identification help.

There’s another species
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2011-05-22 22:01:42 CDT (-0500)

in the Sierras, as well, H. amplexa, I think. I’m no good with the imshaugii look-alikes. Fairly sure it’s not inactiva (coastal species), though.

The “group” is easy: inflated tube-like thing with white interior (I didn’t see any visible in these photos, worth checking), lobes are “ascending” (as opposed to drooping), and fertile (cups all over)

Created: 2011-05-22 17:29:24 CDT (-0500)
Last modified: 2011-05-23 13:05:10 CDT (-0500)
Viewed: 59 times, last viewed: 2016-03-30 01:53:53 CDT (-0500)
Show Log