When: 2017-06-10

Collection location: Lourinhã, Portugal [Click for map]

Who: zaca

No specimen available

Growing on calcareous rocky soil.


Microscopy: Apothecial section (x100, in water);
Microscopy: Apothecial section – close ups of the central part (x400, in water);
Microscopy: Apothecial section – close ups of the margins (x400, in water);
Microscopy: Apothecial section in lugol over phloxine (x400);
Microscopy: Asci (x1000, in phloxine);
Microscopy: Spores (x1000, in water and in phloxine); Approximate dimensions of 3-5 x2-2.5 µm.
Microscopy: Apothecial sections in IKI (x100); No pretreatment in KOH; Of the two sections only one react bluish;
Microscopy: Asci, spores and paraphyses (x1000, in IKI);
Microscopy: Asci, spores and paraphyses (x1000, in IKI).

Proposed Names

29% (1)
Recognized by sight
58% (1)
Recognized by sight
87% (1)
Recognized by sight: My acknowledgment to the lichenologist Kerry Knudsen, who determined the Sarcogyne species, based on the sample of the specimen that I sent him.
Based on microscopic features
Based on chemical features

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
Microscopy: New data added.
By: zaca
2017-06-14 14:58:32 MDT (-0600)
Clearly “left with a real quandry”.
By: zaca
2017-06-13 15:38:43 MDT (-0600)

Thanks, Jason, for the very clear and nice explanation.
I think I will leave it at the genus level, since I find no reference to the name S. similis in Europe. It is a pitty because, judjing from these specimens, it is a very nice lichen with a lovely asci structure, each one with hundreds (?) of spores inside.

You’ve left out one more option
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2017-06-13 15:10:33 MDT (-0600)

… some other species! My notes concur that S. regularis is restricted to calcareous and S. clavus (with black hypothecium) is restricted to acidic rocks.

S. privigna is more complicated. The basonym, Lecidea privigna is a synonym for Polysporina simplex, but the name Sarcognye privigna has been used widely in both N. Amer. and Europe to refer to a different taxon. Knudsen et al 2013 showed that what authors in both continents referred to as S. privigna is synonymous with Sarcogyne hypophaea, so that is now considered the correct name for that taxon. It has conspicuous “joint lines” in the apothecial margin. Since yours has conspicuously smooth margins, we can rule this species out, anyway, whatever we call it.

Now, what do we do with hypothetical epruinose S. regularis? According to my studies of the literature, there is no difference between epruinose S. regularis and S. similis! And in fact, S. similis, according to Knudsen, can grow on either calcareous or siliceous rocks. So we’re left with a real quandry.

[CORRECTION: Kerry told me that he doesn’t think S. similis grows on calcareous rock. I must’ve read too much into “…rarely … on limestone” in the Sonoran Flora. Sorry about that! —Jason 14 Jun 2017]

Personally, I just call all epruinose speicmens S. similis and have done with it. But you are of course free to interpret the mess however you like. Enjoy! :)

Sarcogyne in western europe
By: zaca
2017-06-13 14:51:52 MDT (-0600)

Three species of Sarcogyne:
S. regularis, S. clavus and S. privigna
are mentioned in the British flora and also mentioned at the following website of western europe:
“Lichen maritimes” – http://www.lichensmaritimes.org/...
while in
“Irish Lichens” (http://www.irishlichens.ie/pages-lichen/l-554.html),
“Dorset nature” (http://www.dorsetnature.co.uk/pages-lichen/lch-38.html),
and “Stridvall’s gallery” (http://www.stridvall.se/lichens/gallery/Sarcogyne/NIKA0507)
only the first of that species is mentioned.
In “AFL lichens” (http://www.afl-lichenologie.fr/Photos_AFL/Photos_AFL_S.htm) the first (with 3 varieties) and the last are mentioned.
In “Mycologie e lichénologie en Catalogne nord” (http://mycologie.catalogne.free.fr/lichens.htm#S) the first is mentioned and also S. fallax (without description).

Only S. regularis is commonly referred to live on calcareous habitats. The other (2) species live on siliceous substrata.
In the description of this species in the British Flora is said “densely blue-grey pruinose but sometimes not”.
So, these specimens are clear candidates to the “NOT”.

Yes, both genera are very similar
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2017-06-12 14:15:50 MDT (-0600)

Both follow cracks, have same general look and feel.

They are both common in the desert where I’m working. I recommend going with Sarcogyne for this, despite the occasional umbos. This is an unusually well-developed specimen. True Polysporina apothecia are completely covered with knobs, warts, ridges, umbos, etc., with no hymenium showing at all.

I have not that experience and these genera are…
By: zaca
2017-06-12 14:06:41 MDT (-0600)

not frequent here. I thought that everything fits well in P. smiplex: the spore dimensions (though not accurate), the apothecia following the line cracks of the substrata. The apothecia are not gyrose, but many are umbonate. I will look for the Sarcogyne species that can exist here, which I don’t know what are.

My understanding of Polysporina / Sarcogyne
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2017-06-12 13:38:39 MDT (-0600)

is that all the Polysporina are conspicuously gyrose and/or umbonate. (Sarcogyne sometimes is, too, in part, but Polysporina is never smooth, even in parts of the thallus.)

Are you basing your id on the carbonized exciple? There are Sarcogyne with black exciple, too. S. similis, for example, can grow on either calcareous or siliceous rock or consolidated soil, has a black smooth margin, can have a pure black disk, hyaline hypothecium, etc. The exciple is usually paler inside, but so is the exciple of Polysporina species with carbonized outer exciple, so that doesn’t really help discriminate the two genera.

Created: 2017-06-12 10:12:52 MDT (-0600)
Last modified: 2017-09-17 06:37:05 MDT (-0600)
Viewed: 136 times, last viewed: 2019-08-13 07:24:25 MDT (-0600)
Show Log