Observation 341201: Umbilicaria phaea Tuck.

This observation is for the large lichen. Doesn’t appear to have the features of U. angular or U. torrefacta although interestingly my sample either has long white rhizines (which is suppose to be uncommon for U. phaea) or perhaps are branches from the main stalk, see photo for example.


Proposed Names

30% (2)
Used references: Lichens of CA, Lichens of North America

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
Those ridges are strange
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2018-10-30 23:46:28 EDT (-0400)

For what it’s worth, I remember U. phaea being by far the most common species in southern California. Only at the highest elevations would other things like U. angulata, U. vellea, U. virginis, and so on start to appear. I particularly remember populations of U. phaea where in some the rough projections (the papillae which give it the sandpapery texture) would elongate into stubby rhizines. It’s one of those genera where you need to see the whole population to really develop confidence in your id.

Yes, I see that now
By: Cindy Trubovitz (Trubo)
2018-10-30 23:32:12 EDT (-0400)

looking at more sites and observations. It also seems that the lacerated margins of U. torrefacta are not always very obvious or throughout the whole thallus making it more challenging. The underside of another very small sample collected shows some small ridges (added photo) that I thought curious.

Interesting specimen
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2018-10-27 21:54:18 EDT (-0400)

I struggle to decide between U. phaea and U. torrefacta for things like this. The pale “rhizines” yours shows are very similar to the “trabeculae” of U. torrefacta.

Created: 2018-10-27 16:33:18 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2018-10-30 23:46:29 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 32 times, last viewed: 2019-07-27 14:19:13 EDT (-0400)
Show Log