Observation 88647: Biatora Fr.
When: 2012-03-05
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: on dead Alnus rubra in area of relatively poor air quality

Would like some help with this one, as don’t know if I am on the right track. Doesn’t clearly key out to species.

thought exciple appeared Iodine + pale violaceous but this was very weak

Species Lists

Images

202552
image 9mm across, thallus K+y
202553
sxn in KOH
202554
both in H2O, crystals soluble in KOH
202555
spores average 15.5 × 4.2
202556
interesting how much on these small pieces of bark (from small area on dead Alnus rubra)

Proposed Names

55% (1)
Eye3 Eyes3
Used references: Smith, C.w., Aptroot, A., Coppins, B.J., Fletcher, A., Gilbert, O.L., James, P.W. and Wolseley, P.A. (2009) The Lichens of Great Britain and Ireland, Printzen, C. and Tonsberg, T. (1999) “The Lichen Genus Biatora in Northwestern North America” Bryologist 102(4): 692-713
Based on microscopic features: see images notes

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Printzen 1995
By: Richard Droker (wanderflechten)
2012-06-01 08:06:49 CST (+0800)

Thank you for the reference.

I have the same problems.

Printzen 1995
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-03-13 04:39:43 CST (+0800)

For Biatora it looks like Printzen is the authority:

Printzen, C. 1995. Die Flechtengattung Biatora in Europa. Bibliotheca Lichenologica, 60, J. Cramer, Berlin, Stuttgart. 275 pp.

The Bibliotheca Lichenologica seem to be particularly hard to hold of though. (And I can’t read German very well, anyway.)

Ekman 1996
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-03-13 04:36:53 CST (+0800)

Ekman, S. 1996. The corticolous and lignicolous species of Bacidia and Bacidina in North America. Opera Botanica 127: 1-148. [RLL List #164 / Rec. #4795]

Ekman treatment
By: Richard Droker (wanderflechten)
2012-03-13 04:25:23 CST (+0800)

Where is the Ekman treatment, and why can’t I find a reference? (Can’t connect with lichen literature site today.)

Confusion of terminology
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-03-12 05:15:49 CST (+0800)

Some authors use upper hymenium in place of epihymenium. The funny thing is Curtis decries this confusion regularly, but for some reason chose to use “upper hymenium” which I thought was clearly in the minority. Maybe it’s a European thing.

Those keys only cover one area in central BC. Granted there is a lot of diversity in that area, so there is huge overlap with the entire greater area. Still it’s entirely possible you have something not included in those keys. It was worth a try!

Wish I had access to the Ekman treatment. I think that’s still the authority.

doesn’t key
By: Richard Droker (wanderflechten)
2012-03-12 04:45:33 CST (+0800)

not sure what “upper hymenium” exactly refers to in Wells Gray key, but what I would call the epihymenium is POL+ in H2O (see photo), POL- in KOH

On Wells Gray key, if “upper hymenium” POL+ then key gives B. pallens spores 9-18×2-3 (which is too narrow) 3-septate (some other characteristics also not consistent with specimen)

if “upper hymenium” POL- then keys (exciple IKI-) to B. nobilis spores (5.0-)5.5-7.2(-8.5) x (10.0-)12.5-18.3(-21.5) (0-)3-septate, known western B.C. WA and OR, but only on conifer trunks in mixed Pseudotsuga forests (very different substrate and habitat)

By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-03-06 03:55:14 CST (+0800)

I think you need to at least consider a number of genera: Bacidia, Bacidina, Mycobilimbia, Myxobilimbia, Bilimbia, etc. But I reached the same conclusion as you – I tentatively agree that this is Biatora.

Created: 2012-03-06 00:52:58 CST (+0800)
Last modified: 2012-03-06 01:13:17 CST (+0800)
Viewed: 166 times, last viewed: 2016-11-22 22:53:48 CST (+0800)
Show Log