|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)
is to forget with my equipment.
Thanks, Jason, for the help.
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).
at the spores or they are all similar for the target species ?
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 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!
Did you notice the short and strong rhizines visible in the 2nd photo: top-center?
Created: 2012-01-05 01:05:12 MSK (+0400)
Last modified: 2012-01-05 01:05:14 MSK (+0400)
Viewed: 36 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 12:59:37 MSK (+0300)