When: 2011-05-21

Collection location: Serra de São Mamede, Portugal [Click for map]

Who: zaca

No specimen available

I must remark that in the field I didn’t take note of the bluish tones that the photographs show; I always saw brown. Maybe this was caused from the lightning conditions at the time of the observation.
The existence of true cyphellae clearly points to the genus Sticta.
Recalling the earlier discussion concerning Observation MO64833, this time I bet on Sticta feluginosa, since I’m able to see some clusters of isidia at the margins of the lobes, but this is simply my guess.


Chemical reactions on medulla.
Underside of lobe.
Underside of lobe.
The effect of the wetting.

Proposed Names

6% (2)
Used references: See MO64833 and some of the references therein.
56% (1)
Recognized by sight: shiny hairless upper surface, (mostly) black apothecia, broad insdistinct dark veins, stubby rhizines, dry open habitat

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
Nothing to apologize for!
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2011-05-25 22:01:15 CEST (+0200)

There’s a lot to take in at first, and it’s not even clear how to organize all that information in your brain. You’re learning faster than anyone else I’ve ever known. Good work, keeping specimens and notes. It has obviously helped your studies a great deal.

Jason, it was my mistake
By: zaca
2011-05-25 21:43:14 CEST (+0200)

and I am ashamed of him. In fact, I confused the veins and the felted depressions with real cyphellae. As usual you are right and I apologize you.
Concerning your proposal of P. neckeri, I already some photos of the specimens classified which it are very similar to those of my specimens.
One intriguing question to me was the reference to the existence of apothecia, that I had not noticed. Again, I did not know what to look for and apothecia of this species are very “special”. Then I was able to see some, especially in the 3rd photo. I went to see the material that had collected and also managed to find one, that I’ve already uploaded a photo.
Thanks again, Jason, for “putting things in the right order”.

Pattern of veins underneath mistaken for cyphellae
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2011-05-25 03:16:45 CEST (+0200)

I can definitely understand how you would see nice round “holes” in this specimen. But real cyphellae actually penetrate the lower cortex and at least on close inspection show a clear hard rim. More important in this case, are the veins. Very few lichens have veins, mostly Peltigera and the closely related Solorina. Sticta never has veins or rhizines.

According to checklists, you have essentially the same species as North America (I don’t recognize P. dissecta or P. melanorhiza from the Azores checklist, but they don’t sound promising). The important characters to note are 1) the shiny hairless upper surface, and 2) the black saddle-like apothecia on raised finger-like protusions from the thallus margin. Together these place it in the P. neckeri group, of which there are only a few species: P. neckeri itself, P. collina (usually sorediate and grows primarily on trees), and P. phyllidiosa endemic to southeastern North America.

(I was worried about the brown apothecia I saw in at least one of the photos, but now that I look, I can find a few brownish apothecia in some of my specimens, too. I think the predominance of black-black apothecia is more important. The veins and rhizines are certainly correct, as well.)