Observation 85669: Peltigera Willd.
When: 2011-12-24
Who: zaca
No herbarium specimen

Notes: I’m in doubt between P. hymenina and P. membranacea, but it can be another species.

Images

193094
193095
193096
193097
Underside of lobes: in situ (A) and dry (B); dryed sample in the background.
193386
lobes under the microscope.
193387
lobes under the microscope.

Proposed Names

58% (1)
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
“fusiform to needle-shaped spores” …
By: zaca
2012-01-05 19:43:22 CST (-0500)

is to forget with my equipment.
Thanks, Jason, for the help.

Good question!
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-01-05 19:37:30 CST (-0500)

I’ve never looked at a spore for Peltigera(!) Most of my sources don’t even include spore size. They are listed as “4 to many-celled, fusiform to needle-shaped”, implying significant variation. The Sonoran Flora (source for descriptions on CNALH) lists every species as 3-5 or 3(-5) septate, but with some potentially useful variation in spore length.

In my opinion, we are still considering:

P. degenii – canina group but hairless, somewhat raised ropy veins
P. polydactylon and P. neopolydactyla – shiny and hairless, broad low veins
P. pacifica – only seen it once and it made no sense to me

and any of dozens of other species I’ve never heard of! Of course, we might have diagnosed the lack of tomentum incorrectly, opening up several other option, like any of the not-so-hairy canina group (praetextata, ponojensis, membranacea).

Will it be useful to look ..
By: zaca
2012-01-05 18:30:39 CST (-0500)

at the spores or they are all similar for the target species ?

Wish I could help more!
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-01-05 17:07:34 CST (-0500)

Many specimens of Peltigera drive me crazy, too! I think we can rule out P. membrancea, though, based on your new photos.

No name is better than a bad name.
By: zaca
2012-01-05 16:17:01 CST (-0500)

Thanks, Jason, for all these work with my observations. Peltigera spp. still make me crazy. I have made one more exercise, observing a lobe placed between two slides under the microscope. I maintain that there is no tomentum on the upper surface or, if it exists, is very very smooth silky. I have no former reference that would help in this case.

I see them
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-01-04 20:33:08 CST (-0500)

I don’t feel comfortable putting any name on this specimen. Those short “strong” rhizines do occur in polydactylon. The brown, saddle-shaped apothecia rule out the neckeri group completely. P. membranacea can have scarcely-detectable tomentum (requiring dissecting scope to see), but the veins just don’t look raised enough. P. degenii is in the same group and truly does not have any tomentum. If it really were in the polydactylon group it should be shinier. Beats me!

No tomentum on the upper surface.
By: zaca
2012-01-04 18:03:32 CST (-0500)

Did you notice the short and strong rhizines visible in the 2nd photo: top-center?

Is there any tomentum on the upper surface?
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-01-04 17:38:13 CST (-0500)

I can’t quite tell from the photos, but it looks like it is completely hairless. The veins remind me most of P. polydactylon group, although they are paler than usual. I think P. hymenina is hairless like polydactylon but it is supposed to have no veins (or only a few, broad and indistinct).

Created: 2012-01-04 16:05:12 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2012-01-04 16:05:14 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 36 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 05:59:37 CDT (-0400)
Show Log