Notes: L. columbiana is abundant on Pinus ponderosa in this area, but localized relative to L. lupina/vulpina (need to look at) which is exceedingly abundant.
|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||4.81||1||(wanderflechten)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Thanks Jason. I’ll get back to you on Letharia, etc.
Thanks very much Martin. I’ll try to remember to add photographic information with some new observations on MO. (However my methods are somewhat antiquated and probably not the way most people would do it these days. Some info on Flickr – http://www.flickr.com/... )
I visited your posts on flicker (found on your summary page) and I am blown away. Would you consider putting info on your equipment and process on the MO? I would love to know how those photos are produced. Very, very, nice! Thanks.
Thank you for adding this to MO. Keep this up, and MO will become respectable. :)
The difference is so subtle, even the primary author has allegedly expressed some doubt. They are defined as much as anything by the strain of algae(!) Both use Trebouxia jamesii but their respective algal partners form distinct phylogenetic clades. When growing together, perversely, the two species are impossible to distinguish reliably without resorting to sequencing. However, in the core of their respective ranges (L. vulpina on coast, L. lupina in the interior) there are consistent morphological differences.
Tricky stuff! Get Trevor Goward to explain the difference to you some day. Good luck. :)
Created: 2012-03-15 21:49:04 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2012-03-15 21:55:18 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 136 times, last viewed: 2016-10-22 07:09:50 CEST (+0200)