Observation 89144: Xanthomendoza ulophyllodes (Räsänen) Søchting, Kärnefelt & S. Kondr.
When: 2012-03-11
Herbarium specimen reported

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Photos moved
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-03-19 20:24:26 EDT (-0400)

Everybody: this observation contained set of photos that have been moved into a new observation 90419. The lichen were different in color (but barely perceptible), had abundant rhizines (this one does too), and globular soredia tending to be in the center of rosettes (this one has similarly-looking, but at the tips of lobes mostly). The main difference was K-test (negative in that observation but wine-red here)

Yes they can
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-03-19 19:47:01 EDT (-0400)

Sorry to hear about your upload problems. Are you on a satellite or dial-up ISP? Is it timing out, or are you getting an error message from MO?

To move the images, take them off of this observation using “Remove Images”. Go to the new observation (create if necessary, of course), then attach the images to it using “Reuse Image”. If you’ve uploaded them recently, they will be on top of the list of candidate images, otherwise you might have to scroll down a bit to find them. You can only move one at a time this way, sorry.

Can photos be moved from this one to another?
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-03-19 19:30:54 EDT (-0400)

Or do I have to upload them again? I have issues with uploading to MO – every other time it conks out (and clicking any buttons om MO have similar response – it only works every other time)

You are so conscientious…
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-03-19 18:41:14 EDT (-0400)

The critical thing is to get the first photo right. How about moving all the other images to a new observation, and leaving this conversation with the first photo (now an observation of Xanthomendoza whatever-we-decided-it-was :)

In this particular discussion we only ever referred to the first photo, the “others”, and (once) the bottom photo. I think it will be fine to move all the “others” to another observation, and just make a note of it in one final comment.

Does this work for you?

I was thinking of it
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-03-19 18:26:37 EDT (-0400)

But then part of the conversation will not make sence to those reading it – the second photo will become the first. On the other hand, when you look the observation up in MO, it shows wrong picture for the species. Yet on the other hand, if I just move it down, the conversation will be confusing again – and sometimes discussions carry more weight than the observations thery’re about. What do I do?

That’s definitely Candelaria concolor
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-03-19 18:17:17 EDT (-0400)

Thanks for checking. Remarkable specimen. But I’m coming to expect that from you.

PS. You want to move that first photo into a different observation, then?

Picked a specimen
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-03-19 18:12:20 EDT (-0400)

K- didn’t see any changes at all. Abundant white rhizines. Tiny globular soredia that looks almost like isidia.

I can’t resist…
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-03-17 23:54:05 EDT (-0400)

The air holds a lot less water when it is cold. So maybe they are dried up in both cases?

(Definitely not what happens in winter in the Smokies: everything stays waterlogged all winter long. Where I spend time there, we see the sun for only a few hours a day because of the mountain behind us. And since it is rarely below freezing for long, it results in nearly continual perfect lush growing conditions for lichens: indirect light, high humidity, cool temperatures.)

Not quite
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-03-17 23:40:14 EDT (-0400)

Winter ended two weeks ago (it was a wimpy one too). We have temps steady in high 70th, and 50th at night – like in June. I was caught off-guard, not having my lichen equipment ready for a season that started at least a month too early. Of course, lichen can be photographed in winter, too, but they tend to be not as lush – I’d compare them with someone shriveling in the cold waiting for a bus versus a person enjoying vacation on a beach (except, I don’t like them too dry in summer either – then they look like a traveler dying from thirst in a desert). All I can offer is metaphors, but someone more experienced can actually tell us what happens to fungal and algal parts in winter.

abit of bright…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2012-03-17 22:35:27 EDT (-0400)

in a winter’s landscape, eh?

Have to pick them
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-03-17 21:33:11 EDT (-0400)

I didn’t realize in the field I picked the odd specimen, not representing the bulk of what I was looking at – got to go there again.

Don’t act so surprised!
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-03-17 21:21:54 EDT (-0400)

…but what about the others??

Me Complainer
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-03-17 21:17:36 EDT (-0400)

Thanks, Jason. Now that you mentioned it, I found it too – in the description for the genus, rather than species (where I was looking). The upper specimen turned deep red, just like you predicted :-)

That’s odd
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-03-17 21:00:04 EDT (-0400)

Candelaria and Candelariella have pulvinic acid derivatives (K- or K+ reddish), compared to Caloplaca and Xanthoria which have anthraquinones (K+ deep wine red). It is the foolproof method of distinguishing yellowish Caloplaca and Xanthoria from deep-colored Candelaria and Candelariella. Normally, the former are obviously much oranger than the latter, but there are cases (esp. in the shade) where they just appear yellowish instead of orange. In such cases, unless you know the species well, the K test is required to be sure.

K test
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-03-17 20:46:58 EDT (-0400)

You refer to K test of Candelaria, and I haven’t found anything regarding it in my books. What would I look for?

I don’t think you can always tell from photo
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-03-17 00:40:48 EDT (-0400)

I think this could go either way. Not very helpful, huh?

Just added another photo
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-03-16 22:09:37 EDT (-0400)

I hope that the photo I just added at the very botom is the right species – I’m ashamed not to have learned the difference yet.

Might all be the same
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-03-12 21:59:53 EDT (-0400)

But the top photo sure does look a lot more orange. And, well, we know now how difficult it can be to distinguish some forms of X. weberi and X. ulophyllodes in your area! Also, the yellow Xanthoria can be hard to distinguish from Candelaria / Candelariella without K test.

Will do tests at some point
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-03-12 21:37:38 EDT (-0400)

I’ll be there again, so I’ll try to grab the thallii for testing. I actually took one, but that’s the Xanthomendoza one in the top photo – I didn’t realise at the time I was dealing with two species here.

Top one is Xanthomendoza
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-03-12 21:20:55 EDT (-0400)

Probably X. ulophyllodes if I remember our earlier discussion correctly. I’d prefer to have a K test on the yellower thalli in the other photos before committing to Candelaria for them, either. Candelaria can definitely have well-developed lobes, but only occasionally. To find such a large population which hasn’t dissolved into a sea of granules anywhere would seem to be highly unlikely. Certainly been wrong before, though!

Created: 2012-03-11 21:48:46 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2012-03-19 21:26:25 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 163 times, last viewed: 2016-10-22 10:48:03 EDT (-0400)
Show Log