Notes: Code: Bot_305/2008-4292
Habitat: stony upland grassland, full sun, wind and precipitations exposed, average precipitations ~3.000 mm/year, average temperature 0-2 deg C, altitude 1.910 m (6.300 feet), alpine phytogeographical region.
Place: South ridge of Mt. Mali Vrh, 1994 m (6.542 feet), Mt. Mangart’s flats, East Julian Alps, Posocje, Slovenia EC
Nikon D70 / Nikorr Micro 105mm/f2.8
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.67||1||(amadej)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
These are deceptive species. I only knew what to look for because I’ve made the same mistake! Your observations continue to set the gold standard. (Although Richard Droker is giving you some competition in the photography department.)
You were right Jason. I was not careful enough. I corrected the mistake and also posted Flavocetrelia cucullata pictures (obs: 90386) too. I also added close up pictures of thallus of both species to demonstrate the difference. Thank you again for your careful observation.
Thanks Jazon. Will take some time and look at this issue. I remember that I took pictures of F. cucullata too almost at the same place. I also (should) have exicates of both. Will brows through my files and report.
photo 205246 could be F. cucullata. I could be wrong. The key difference is not so much the lobes curling into “tubes” like this (typical for cucullata), but the texture of the surface. F. nivalis is scrobiculate (has low ridges or wrinkles), while F. cucullata is smooth. Maybe you have a higher-res copy and can see this better. F. nivalis has fooled me before, it wouldn’t be the first time. But I wanted to make sure there was at least a comment alerting viewers to the potential confusion.
[EDIT: You can see more F. cucullata like specimens in the background of photo 205242.]
Created: 2012-03-17 11:47:51 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2012-03-17 11:59:05 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 114 times, last viewed: 2016-10-22 20:20:34 CDT (-0400)