Observation 88250: Physciella chloantha (Ach.) Essl.
When: 2011-07-20
Herbarium specimen reported

Proposed Names

31% (2)
Recognized by sight
47% (2)
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
Maybe we’d better hedge this one, then?
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2014-07-15 12:45:33 PDT (-0700)

Maybe, if I’m reading between the lines in Esslinger’s comments correctly, P. melanchra should mostly have laminal soralia and few if any marginal/terminal soralia. These all have lots of terminal (sub-terminal?? :) soralia. And they are extremely well-developed, therefore we should ignore those occasional laminal soralia.

re: names with two authorities — The author in parentheses is the the author who originally described the species. The author following that is the one that transferred it to the present genus. So Hue described this species originally, then Esslinger created the “new” genus Physciella and transferred Physcia melanchra and P. chloantha to it.

T.Esslinger provided interesting insight…
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2014-06-29 17:40:22 PDT (-0700)

He was in town and checked out my Physcia and relatives that were waiting to be identified. Unfortunately, this specimen is already in the Herbarium, so he didn’t look at it. But he looked at other ones from the same park – some of them I identified as P.chloantha, and some as P.melanchra . Sometimes I was right, and sometimes I was wrong. None of that stuff was posted on the MO (I think), since the photos were crap – I just needed to verify the species in that location. Couple of interesting comments by Esslinger on the difference between the two species:
P.melanchra, but somewhat intermediate to P.chloantha
“Very mature P.chloantha does sometimes begin to develop laminal soralia also!”

By the way, why are there two names behind the species – like this one has Hue and Esslinger – I am only familiar with nomenclature where the person who named the species is mentioned. Why two?

Thanks that’s the one!
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-02-26 11:41:23 PST (-0800)

But you’re right, if that’s pale underneath, I’ll eat my hat. :) So much for the “cortical flap theory”…

I’m not sure
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-02-26 11:18:34 PST (-0800)

I’ve posted two observations of Phaeophyscia pusilloides: observation 88110 & observation 88158 . Both have white-tipped black rhizines protruding into the open from under the thallus. This one has white rhizines. If you see “herbarium specimen available”, check with me. I’ve sent you some of the specimen, and more is on the way. Also, I’m waiting for J.Bennett to get back to me with IDs of the material I deposited at UW-Madison.

I could have sworn
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-02-26 11:09:44 PST (-0800)

you had an observation of Phaeophyscia pusilloides that looked exactly like this. Damn. I really need to go back over all these physcioid observations when you finish and reevaluate them in context. It is so helpful to have a few solid points like this observation. With specimen in hand, I can verify that the underside is pale, and the spot tests are both negative. So there is no question this one is Physciella. (Also, note that conspicuous white flap of cortex surrounding the soralia. This seems to be a reliable character for Physciella.)

Blame Jason.
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-02-26 10:08:33 PST (-0800)

Jason takes credit for this ID (and all the criticism that comes with it too :-)

Created: 2012-02-26 10:03:30 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2014-07-15 15:25:13 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 74 times, last viewed: 2016-10-20 15:38:22 PDT (-0700)
Show Log