Collection location: Serra de São Mamede, Portugal [Click for map]
|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||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Good job untangling those photos. I did a walk in BC one day where all my dozens of Peltigera photos ended up in completely random order. (It’s a long story!) My god, was that difficult to straighten out! Half never did correspond to specimens on my desk. It is common in central BC to see more than 10 species on any one day. Even farther south where there is less diversity it’s still common to find multiple species growing together.
a more clear idea about what could had happened. For a better understanding I already labeled the attached photos from 1 to 6:
- The attached photos were taken in three moments and in between I took photos of other lichens.
- The first photo correspond to the 1st moment and is the only one with that protagonist (Jason commented that this could be a Peltigera neckeri);
- Photos 4 and 5 where taken at the 2nd moment in reverse oreder (these are the ones with very stubby rhizines with indistinct veins, in Jason words relative to photo 5);
- All the rest – photos 2, 3 and 6 – must correspond to the same group of specimens, though photo 3 where tooked immediately after photo 4.
This means that, in fact and also according to Jason comments, we can have three different species in this observation.
I should also add that the specimen of Observation MO78053 also lived in this habitat and its photo was taken with a delay of 3-4 minutes from the last one in this observation, and that the lichens observed in between the ones presented here were of Nephroma sp.
That’s to many Peltigera spp. and alikes for an unwary observer!
Yes, they have different habitat preferences, but those preferences have a lot of overlap. In fact the best way to learn some species is to see how they behave when growing on top of similar species near the edge of their range!
but I will try to check it as soon as possible. In a first look at your comments, they will lead to the existence of 3 different species (which seems a bit to much for one place), or to 2 species one of which observed in different times.
I’m having trouble identifying these from the top. But there are two very different types of veins in these photos. 172631 in particular has dark, very stubby rhizines with indistinct veins. I can’t really see 172630. The rest have pure white underside with narrow raised veins and long discrete ropy rhizines. The first photo is the only one showing dark apothecia like P. neckeri should have. Actually P. neckeri should have pitch-black apothecia except rarely in shaded forms particularly if wet or fresh growth, which this specimen is clearly not. Also, P. neckeri should have dark indistinct veins, not at all like these.
The white distinct veins and rhizines belong to the canina group (but not P. canina itself!) They look most like P. praetextata, or if there is no tomentum on the upper surface (you really need to check with hand lens right at the tips to be sure) then maybe it’s P. degenii. I’ve found P. degenii in southern California, which is otherwise climatically very similar to Portugal, at least as far as lichens are concerned it seems. So that’s plausible.
The one with stubby dark rhizines and indistinct veins is in the polydactylon or neckeri group. Not the horizontalis group, I’d say, because the outer rhizines are not aligned in concentric rows. Unfortunately I can’t find apothecia in that photo. P. neckeri and P. polydactylon are both perfectly plausible given what I can see. Given the habitat, maybe P. neckeri is more likely.
Created: 2011-10-05 07:54:51 -03 (-0300)
Last modified: 2011-10-12 12:42:34 -03 (-0300)
Viewed: 95 times, last viewed: 2018-08-14 01:39:40 -03 (-0300)