(2009): Lichens in Scandinavia known mainly from Norwegian type ...

Lichens in Scandinavia known mainly from Norwegian typespecimens
PER M. JØRGENSEN and ANDERS NORDIN
Jørgensen, P. M. & Nordin, A. 2009: Lichens known mainly from Norwegian typespecimens.
Graphis Scripta 21: 1–20. Stockholm. ISSN 0901-7593.
About 50 lichen species are in Scandinavia only known from Norway, many with the type
as the only specimen. A few of these are truly rare or overlooked species, such as Bacidia
verecundula, Caloplaca havaasii, Ionaspis granvina, Metamelanea caesiella, Micarea
osloënsis, and the most remarkable of them all, Buellia tesserata, a widespread but rare,
thermomediterranean species, which has not been recollected in Norway since its
description. The majority, however, belong in critical, poorly understood genera, such as
Lecidea, Polyblastia and Verrucaria and are probably only synonyms of more common
species. They are in need of further studies, preferably on recently collected material,
since many of them are only known from old, small, poorly developed specimens. In a
few cases it has been possible to come to a definite identification with older names:
Aspicilia alexandri and A. austronorvegica = Aspilidea myrinii, Bacidia luridoglaucella =
Bacidina inundata, Lecidea atrocuprea = Tremolecia atrata, L. epiploica = Calvitimela
perlata, Verrucaria osloënsis (syn. nov. Verrucaria magnussoniana) = Verrucaria
macrostoma. All names are typified.
Two Lecidea species from the top of Galdhøpiggen mountain (2469 m), L. altissima
and L. ludificans, both apparently distinct species closely related to Arctic taxa, are
important additions to the arctic-alpine element and the only likely endemics among
Norwegian lichens.
Per M. Jørgensen, Department of Natural History, Bergen Museum, University of Bergen,
Allégaten 41, N-5007 Bergen, Norway. E-mail: per.jorgensen@bm.uib.no
Anders Nordin, Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 16, SE-752 36
Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: anders.nordin@evolmuseum.uu.se
The checklist of Fennoscandian lichens and
lichenicolous fungi (Santesson et al. 2004)
includes several lichen species only known
from restricted areas in Norway. Many of these
are only known from one locality, often the
type-locality. Some are species which for
ecophysiological reasons are restricted to
Norway (Tønsberg et al. 1996), most
prominently the oceanic element, mainly found
on the wet southwestern coast (Degelius 1935,
Jørgensen 1996), e.g. Arthonia ilicina,
Bactrospora homalotropa, Cladonia callosa,
Gomphillus calycoides, Leptogium britannicum,
Megalospora pachycarpa, Parmotrema arnoldii,
Parmeliella testacea, Rinodina isidioides,
Solenopsora vulturiensis, Stenocybe nitida,
Thelotrema macrosporum, and Wadeana minuta.
The moist spruce forests of central Norway
(Nord-Trøndelag and S Nordland) contains an
even more remarkable element, sometimes
penetrating further inland, even into Sweden
(Ahlner 1947), which is shared with similar
wet forests in North America (The
Newfoundland-region and the Pacific coast)
(Holien & Tønsberg 1996), e.g. Biatora
chrysanthoides, Bryoria americana, Chaeno-

GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009) Lichens mainly known from Norwegian types 2
theca hygrophila, Erioderma pedicellatum and
Szcawinskia leucopoda.
Norway surprisingly also has the driest,
most continental regions in Fennoscandia,
those of the inner, dry valleys of Opland and
adjacent counties, in the rain shadow of
Jotunheimen (Ahlner 1949, Kleiven 1959),
which contain xerophilous steppe-elements, not
found elsewhere in our region, e.g. Buellia
asterella, Caloplaca tominii, Fulgensia
desertorum, Gyalidea asteriscus, Phaeorrhiza
sareptana, Rinodina terrestris, Squamarina
magnussonii, Toninia sculpturata and T.
taurica.
Norway reaches further north than any other
of the Fennoscandian countries and has the
highest mountains. This is reflected in arcticalpine
species, such as Arctocetraria andrejevii,
Asahinea chrysantha, Buellia adjuncta, Lobothallia
alphoplaca and Rhizocarpon dinothetes.
Finally there remains a residue of rare
species which does not necessarily fall into
these categories. They are all described from
Norway and have remained known only, or
mainly, from the type-collections. They
therefore need particular attention, requiring
reexamination, preferably on freshly collected
material to ascertain their taxonomic and
conservation status. There are two possible
main reasons for their rarity:
1. They are parts of poorly understood species
complexes in difficult, not fully understood
genera.
2. They are genuinely rare or overlooked.
From a conservation point of view it is
important to single out the truly rare species
with their only Scandinavian occurrence in
Norway, and to see if they represent phytogeographical
elements to which also other rare
lichens belong.
We are not in a position to resolve the
matter fully as we have been unable to secure
the necessary new material for study, but we
have prepared a commented list on them,
hopefully inspiring other colleagues to make an
attempt to resolve the remaining problems,
which are long overdue.
We have as far as possible studied the type
specimens microscopically and chemically
(TLC). However, some types are so minute that
we have not dared to take more bits,
particularly if studies of spores or chemistry
would not be taxonomically important.
List of species
Acarospora impressula Th.Fr.
Type: Norway, Akershus, Lindøya, 1869, N.G.
Moe (UPS!, lectotype, here selected, Fig. 1).
TLC: no substancees detected.
This is a rather nondescript species in the
Acarospora badiofusca group. Magnusson
(1929) points out the dark, continuous, areolate
crust with a negative C-reaction, the immersed
apothecia, and the broadly ellipsoid spores. The
collector of the original material has noted that
it grew only on dry rocks warmed by the
afternoon sun, which is an indication that it is
one of the southern thermophilous elements,
restricted to the Oslofjord-region (e.g. Anema)
or also present in SE Sweden. This might
account for its rarity, but the world distribution
of this species does not confirm this. In Central
Europe it is recorded as a high montane species
Figure 1. Acarospora impressula, part of
lectotype. Bar = 1 mm.

3 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders Nordin GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009)
(Wirth 1995), not one of the dry, warm valleys,
and in Britain it is known to be coastal (James
et al. 1992). If the taxonomy is correctly
understood it is difficult to see why it should be
rare in Scandinavia. There is only one
additional record from this region, namely from
Finland, and that is doubtful. We conclude that
this species must either be taxonomically misunderstood
or overlooked. It has not recently
been recollected in the type locality which is
partly destroyed by building, but in 1905 it was
collected by Havaas (see Havaas, Lich. exs.
Norv. 508) in another locality in the Oslofjordislands
(Hovedøya), where Magnusson himself
later found it in quantity in 1920 (4 collections in
UPS), but where it has not been recollected since.
Acarospora rosulata (Th.Fr.) H.Magn.
Type: Norway, Oppland, Vågå, Visted, 1863,
Th. M. Fries (UPS!, holotype of Acarospora
discreta f. rosulata Th.Fr., Fig. 2). TLC:
gyrophoric acid
This is a most characteristic species related to
A. peliscypha Th.Fr., but with distinct marginal
lobes forming rosettes and a whitish lower
surface. It was recollected at Viste during the
Nordic Lichen Society’s excursion in 1985
Figure 2. Acarospora rosulata, part of
holotype. Bar = 2 mm.
Figure 3. Acarospora verruciformis, part of
lectotype. Bar = 2 mm.
(L. Tibell, UPS and E. Timdal, O) when it was
found to be locally quite common, and it is
presumably still present in the type locality. It
is also known from Lom in Norway, and there
are additional records from Greenland and
Svalbard, as well as Iceland. Probably it is part
of the arctic-alpine element.
Acarospora verruciformis H.Magn.
Type: Norway, Sør-Trøndelag, Røros, 1919, A.
H. Magnusson 3688 (UPS!, lectotype, here
selected, Fig. 3). TLC: no substances detected.
This is a fairly charcteristic, bullate species in
the A. smaragdula complex. Its rarity is best
explained by its special ecological
requirements, heavy metal rocks, but surely
there are suitable habitats elsewhere in
Scandinavia as well. It has, however, been
recorded from Greenland (Magnusson 1929)
and the British Isles, though Purvis & James
(1992) reports that two different taxa are
involved. It has not been recollected in the type
locality.

GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009) Lichens mainly known from Norwegian types 4
Aspicilia alexandri R.Sant.
Type: Norway, Hedmark, Tronfjell, 1912, B.
Lynge (BG!, lectotype of Lecanora
zahlbruckneri Lynge, here selected).
The original material, of which we have only
been able to locate a specimen at BG, represents
Aspilidea myrinii, a common and
widespread species in our region, described
from the mountains between Sogn and Valdres.
Aspicilia austronorvegica (H.Magn.)
Type: Norway, Vest-Agder, Lyngdal,
Kvinesdalheia, 1939, A. H. Magnusson 16799
(UPS!, holotype of Lecanora austronorvegica
H.Magn.).
Like the former this also represents Aspilidea
myrinii. The name has not formally been
combined into Aspicilia.
Aspicilia lecideoidea Hue
Type: Norway, Dovrefjeld (collector and year
not indicated, but probably Schimper 1844)
(PC, holotype, non vidi).
Since the type has not been located in PC, it is
quite impossible to say what this name
represents in spite of Hue’s detailed
description (1910). It is even doubtful that it
represents an Aspicilia in the present
circumscription. Magnusson (1939) compares
his new species Aspicilia austronorvegica with
A. lecidoidea, so it may prove to be yet another
synonym of Aspilidea myrinii.
Anyway, rarity is certainly not the reason
for the lack of other records, but rather doubts
concerning the identity of the type. It is
certainly not endemic to Dovre or Norway.
Aspicilia mazarina (Wahlenb.) R.Sant.
Type: Norway, Finnmark, Par. Tana, ad
Kamiokaisse, 1802, G. Wahlenberg (UPS!,
holotype of Lichen mazarinus Wahlenb.).
This name has been incorrectly applied to
members of the A. gibbosa group and was
reserved exclusively for the type by Santesson
(1984). However, Magnusson (1939) correctly
suggested that it might be an aberrant form of
Aspicilia aquatica, and thus the oldest name for
this widespread, variable species. A conservation
of the name Aspicilia aquatica against
Lichen mazarinus has recently been proposed
(Nordin & Jørgensen 2008).
Aspicilia nordlandica (H.Magn.) Degel.
Type: Norway, Nordland, Lofoten, Værøy,
Guldakseln, 1922, G. E. DuRietz (UPS!, holotype,
Fig. 4). TLC: norstictic acid.
This is a well-defined species, according to
Magnusson (1939) belonging to the cinereagroup,
but with darker thallus, smaller
apothecia and larger spores than A. cinerea.
Further the paraphyses are distinctly nonmoniliform.
The known distribution is restricted
to Lofoten and the islands of southern
Helgeland (Vega). The record from Sweden
(LuL?) is certainly erroneous and no specimen
to verify it has been located. It has in vain been
Figure 4. Aspicilia nordlandica, part of
holotype. Bar = Bar 0.5 mm.

5 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders Nordin GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009)
searched for in coastal regions further south (in
Hordaland) and appears to belong in a most
interesting, poorly understood phytogeographic
element, also known from some flowering
plants, well exemplified by Rorippa islandica
(Oeder ex Murray) Borbas subsp. islandica
(Jonsell 1968). That taxon is also known from
Iceland, northern Scotland and Greenland as
well as Switzerland.
Aspicilia scabrida (Degel.) R.Sant.
Type: Norway, Forsand, Frafjorddalen,
Brådlandsfossen, N-sidan, 1947, G. Degelius
(UPS!, holotype of Lecanora scabrida). TLC:
norstictic acid.
PMJ has in vain searched for this species in the
region from where it was described, a region
where he grew up. He only succeeded in
refinding it on the very rock where Degelius
originally collected it. This made him
suspicious of its status. AN regards it as an
extreme form of Aspicila epiglypta, a species
which occurs rather frequently in this region.
The spores are not as large as recorded by
Degelius and falls well within the variation of
A. epiglypta.
Aspicilia subarctica (H.Magn.) Creveld
Type: Norway, Troms, Karlsøy, N of Tromsø,
1861, A. J. Malmgren (UPS!, holotype of
Lecanora subarctica H.Magn.).
The specimen is best classified as part of the
Aspicilia zonata complex (Nordin et al. 2007).
See also under Aspicilia tromsoënsis below.
Aspicilia tromsoënsis (H.Magn.) Räsänen
Type: Norway, Troms, Karlsøy, N of Tromsø,
1861, A. J. Malmgren (UPS!, holotype of
Lecanora tromsoënsis H.Magn.).
It is highly unlikely that A. subarctica and A.
tromsoënsis, both rare species, should occur in
this little island which is not known to have a
flora of particular distinction. Actually the type
appears just to be a growthform of the former,
as shown by Nordin et al. (2007).
Bacidia luridoglaucella Vain.
Type: Norway, Sogn og Fjordane, Stadtlandet,
Ervik, 1903, J. J. Havaas (TUR-V 20822!,
holotype).
The description as well as well as the fact that
Havås recorded some other specimes as
Bacidina inundata from the same locality
(Havås 1935), strongly suggested that this is
just an aberrant form of Bacidina inundata, a
fact that was confirmed by studies of the type
(it had already been revised by S. Ekman).
Bacidia verecundula (Th.Fr.) H.Magn.
Type: Norway, Finnmark, Bossekop, 1864, Th.
M. Fries (UPS!, holotype of Bilimbia verecundula
Th.Fr., Fig. 5).
This appears to be a well-defined but
insignificant species, with hardly visible thallus
and very small apothecia, certainly easily
overlooked. Thomson (1997) also records it as
exceedingly rare in Arctic America, also noting
Figure 5. Bacidia verecundula, part of
holotype. Bar = 0.5 mm.

GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009) Lichens mainly known from Norwegian types 6
it from the High-Arctic. However, these
records need confirmation. It is highly unlikely
that this species grows on saxicolous mosses.
A specimen on Populus from the Mackenzie
delta in the Northwest Territory, Canada (leg.
Ahti, H) is according to S. Ekman (pers.
comm.) not correctly identified.
B. verecundula has not been recollected in
the type locality recently.
Biatora troendelagica Holien & Printzen
Type: Norway, Sør-Trøndelag, Meldal, Nfacing
slope of Stavelitjønn, c. 260 m, 1991, H.
Holien 4785 (TRH!, holotype).
This is a very inconspicuous, mainly sterile
lichen, found in an old humid spruce forest.
Apparently it belongs to the ‘rainforest’ species
(Holien & Tønsberg 1996), some of which are
quite rare but usually found in more than one
locality, and often also in North America. The
rarity of B. troendelagica is certainly due to its
insignificant apparence. The collector has even
been incapable to refind it in the type locality.
Buellia tesserata Körb.
Type: Norway, exact locality unknown: ‘an
Schieferfelsen Norwegens von Hübener & Kurr
gesammelt’ (L!, holotype, Fig. 6).
Scheidegger (1993) separated Buellia tesserata
from Buellia fimbriata (Tuck.) Sheard due to
the presence of barbatic acid in the type
specimen, but a renewed study (Rico et al.
2003) of its chemistry showed that it contains
3-chlorodivaricatic acid, just as specimens of
B. fimbriata. The type also exhibits the same
morphological characters, and is practically
identical with material from Greece distributed
by Zahlbruckner in Lich. Rar. 205 (UPS). After
having seen the type of Buellia fimbriata
(California, Bolander 116, FH!), we tend to
agree with Rico et al. (op.cit.) that they are
conspecific, and B. tesserata is the older name.
Scheidegger (op.cit.) also had doubts
concerning the origin of the specimen – a
matter not further discussed by Rico et al.
Figure 6. Buellia tesserata, part of holotype.
Bar = 1 mm.
(op.cit.). There is, however, little reason to
believe that some confusion of labels took
place. Hübener & Kurr travelled in Norway
1828 for Esslinger Reiseverein (Stafleu &
Cowan 1979) and are not known to have
visited Greece or Spain. Hübener & Kurr were
accompanied to Dovre by the Norwegian
doctor Wilhelm Boeck, who had a great
interest in botany (Jørgensen 2007), certainly
passing through Gudbrandsdalen. As long as
their itinerary is unknown, the exact location is
uncertain, but judging from the strongly
thermophilous disposition of the species
(Scheidegger 1991) it is most likely situated in
the upper Gudbrandsdal. There are representatives
of such elements in the upper parts
of this valley and its neighbourhood,
particularly in Vågå (Kleiven 1959), where
there is a prominent xerophilous element
present among the lichens (see above). It is,
however, likely, that Hübener and Kurr started
their travel in lower Telemark, travelling over
Kongsberg, where there is also a thermophilous
element in the flora (cf. the report by
Wikström, 1831, on the botanical activity in
Norway at that time), so it cannot be outruled
that it was here the type was collected.

7 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders Nordin GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009)
An analysis of the rock made by
petrologists at University of Bergen showed
that the type grew on a micaschist of a type
often associated with ultrabasic rock, which is
known from Vågå. Buellia tesserata is
accordingly an extreme representative of the
xerophilous element
Since it is a rather conspicuous species, it
is, however, surprising that it has not been
rediscovered in these parts where lichenologists
have collected frequently. To finally dispel the
doubts concerning the origin of the specimen a
rediscovery is urgently needed.
Another lichen with a most disjunct
Mediterranean-Norwegian distribution is
Staurolemma omphalarioides (Jørgensen &
Henssen 1993), but this species is not quite as
thermophilous as Buellia tesserata.
Caloplaca dovrensis (H.Magn.) Degel.
Type: Norway, Oppland, Hjerkin, alt. 1500 m,
1948, H. Larsson (UPS!, holotypus of
Blastenia dovrensis H.Magn.).
This species of the still very poorly understood
black-fruited members of the Caloplaca
ferruginea group was described by Magnusson
(1950). Magnusson had a limitited material at
his disposal and based the new species on
rather subtle characters, such as hymenium
height, size of verrucae and degree of
development of a thalline margin. For an
evaluation of these characters more material is
needed. The species has also been reported by
Degelius (1982), but, as he himself pointed out,
his specimen differs in several characters from
the type specimen. This shows that there is a
larger variation than Magnusson was aware of,
another indication of that the status of this
species is doubtful. The specimen certainly
belongs in the difficult Caloplaca concilians
group which Wunder (1974) characterized as
being particularly poor in characters. Members
of this species group have been collected in the
Dovre region by others, for example by Th. M.
Fries (who called it Caloplaca ferruginea var.
melanocarpa). We are for the time being
inclined to include this species in C. concilians
s.lat. until the variation of this complex is
better understood.
Caloplaca havaasii H.Magn.
Type: Norway, Granvin, Skålsete, 1938, J. J.
Havaas (UPS!, lectotype).
This interesting and characteristic species of
the Caloplaca marina group has recently been
thoroughly re-evaluated (Arup 2006) and found
to be quite distinct. It is surprising that there
are no known collections from other localities.
Though the habitat, a “saueheller” (=an
overhang where the sheep seeks shelter), is
special, there are several similar ones in
western Norway. They are, however, not
favorite localities for lichenologists. It is
certainly significant that it was the sheep
farmer Havaas who discovered it. In the
herbarium he had named it Caloplaca ovinae
(the Caloplaca of sheep), though Magnusson
unfortunately changed the epithet when the
name was published! Accordingly the rarity
appears to be a result of the special habitat. It is
still present in the type locality.
Helocarpon pulverulum (Th.Fr.) Türk &
Hafellner
Type: Norway, Sør-Trøndelag, Oppdal, Dovre,
Kongsvoll, Høgsnyta, 1863, Th. M. Fries
(UPS!, holotype of Lecidea crassipes f.
pulverula).
This species was regarded by Coppins ( 1983)
as an insignificant variation of Micarea (=
Helocarpon) crassipes (Th.Fr.) Coppins.
However, Hafellner & Türk (2001) reported it
from Austria and re-evaluated its status.
Though we are in doubt about their taxonomic
conclusion, their find certainly excludes the
taxon from the list of possible Norwegian
endemics.

GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009) Lichens mainly known from Norwegian types 8
Ionaspis granvina Havaas ex P.M.Jørg.
Type: Norway, Granvin, near Baorhaug, alt.
600 m, 1949, J. J. Havaas in Lich. exs. norv.
702 (O!, holotype, BG!, C!, H! UPS!, isotypes).
This is a tiny pioneer species on naked wet
rocks, difficult to discover and with ephemeral
occurrence, and therefore certainly mostly
overlooked and possibly more widespread. It is
a distinct species, unique in its genus by its
dark exciple (Jørgensen 1989). It has not been
recollected in the type-locality in recent years.
Lecanora dovrensis Hedl.
Type: Norway, Sør-Trøndelag, Dovre, Drivstuen,
1864, Th. M. Fries (UPS!, holotype).
This is a Lecanora s.str. and at present under
revision by Z. Palice, Pruhonice, who most
kindly has informed us that it is a taxon related
to Lecanora mughicola Nyl., the status of
which he presently is not entirely sure about.
Lecanora inamoenea Th.Fr.
Type: Norway, Finnmark, Mortensnes, 1867,
Th. M. Fries (UPS!, holotype). TLC: traces of
terpenoids.
The rich type material is unfortunately sterile
and its position difficult to decide, also since
the thallus proved to contain only traces of
terpenoids, as already pointed out by Poelt
(1958). Fries recorded lecanorine apothecia
when describing it, and he placed it close to
Placodium gypsaceum, which is surprising as
we find no close resemblance to the genus
Squamarina. The thallus has an about 30 µm
thick paraplectenchymatous cortex of thickwalled
cells (lumina 5 µm wide), brown-pigmented
in upper part, covered by an epinecral
layer. It may belong in Lecanora, but more,
fertile material is needed to decide this.
Lecanora paupera Th.Fr.
Type: Norway, vicinity of Tromsø, J. M.
Norman (type not traced).
This is a doubtful species with a name of
obscure nomenclatural status. Fries (1871) only
mentioned this taxon briefly in a discussion
(note 5) of L. subfusca, remarking that its rank
could only be finally settled after more material
had been discovered. He thus made an
illegitimate name according to the
nomenclatural rules, one which may come into
use when someone later decides the rank. The
name appears to have been totally forgotten
until Santesson (1984) took it up as a species in
his list of lichens of Sweden and Norway.
However, Santesson does not cite the place of
publication in direct association with the name,
only as part of the records of the localities
(which is repeated in Santesson 1993 and
Santesson et al. 2004), and he certainly did not
intend to make a new name as these are listed
separately (not including this one). We
therefore conclude that it still is an illegitimate
name, the rank of which needs to be decided.
Since no further material is available and the
type has not been traced, its taxonomic status
cannot be evaluated. The description
particularly mentions four-spored asci, a
feature not observed in any known taxon of this
group (O. Vitikainen, pers. comm.). The name
is apparently best forgotten but might be
revived if material corresponding to the
description is discovered.
Lecidea altissima H.Magn.
Type: Norway, Oppland, Jotunheimen, Lom,
top of Galdhøpiggen, alt. 2468 m, 1947, G.
Degelius (UPS!, holotype, Fig. 7). TLC:
psoromic acid.
The presence of psoromic acid makes this a
most characteristic species. It does not belong
in Lecidea s.str., but rather to the lecidoid
Lecanoraceae, but the generic situation has not
been resolved (Hertel & Rambold 1985). It
belongs as already pointed out by Degelius
(1968) in the Lecidea elata-group and is allied
to Lecanora scrobiculata (Th.Fr.) Øvstedal, an
arctic species, but is clearly different and

9 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders Nordin GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009)
Figure 7. Lecidea altissima, part of holotype.
Bar = 1 mm.
certainly a distinct species, as already pointed
out by Magnusson (1931).
It has not been recollected recently,
certainly due to the poor accesibility of the type
locality, but it is likely still to be present there.
It is an arctic-alpine species, which possibly is
rare since it prefers high mountains, the top of
Galdhøpiggen being the highest point in
Scandinavia.
Lecidea atrocuprea Vain.
Type: Norway, Hordaland, Hardangervidda,
Eggjane, på skarv, alt. c.1250 m, 21.8 1899, J.
J. Havaas (TUR-V 24389!, holotype). TLC: no
substances detected.
Clearly not a Lecidea s.str. The material is
poorly developed, consisting of a few, rather
immature apothecia immersed in a thin, reddish
brown, areolate thallus, which does not contain
any lichen substances and is also I–. It reminds
somewhat of Tremolecia atrata in structure, but
is much thinner and more glossy than usually
seen in this species. However, the apothecia are
typical of that species and match that of typical
material in all details. A further specimen from
Møre og Romsdal (Havaas 1909, BG) marked
‘L. atrocuprea forma’ represents an intermediate
form between the typical Tremolecia atrata and
‘L. atrocuprea’, so we are in no doubt that the
latter is just a growthform of the former caused
by the growth conditions, presumably a windy,
exposed place (=‘skarv’).
Lecidea epiploica Norman
Type: Norway, Troms, Sörreisa, Middagsfjellet, J.
M. Norman (O!, holotype). TLC: no substances
detected.
A most unusual specimen which Norman
suggested to assign to a subgenus of its own
(Bolothallina), but this was never formally
published. It is not a Lecidea s.str. but,
according to the characters of the apothecia,
better placed in Calvitimela, one of the
lecidioid genera of the Lecanoraceae. It falls
within the variation of the species Haugan &
Timdal (1994) called Tephromela perlata, as
the thallus is chalk-like and the spores are 12–
16 × 6–8 µm, though the partly snail-eaten
thallus does not contain any lichen acids, and
was collected at the base of a birch-tree, while
this species is normally saxicolous and contains
rangiformic and norrangiformic acids (Haugan
& Timdal 1994).
It is therefore rather unfortunate that this is the
oldest names for that species which has
recently finally appeared to have got a stabil
nomenclature. Th. Fries who collected it in
Dovre, called it Lecidella bullata Körb., but
misinterpreted Körber’s description which
refers to a quite different species, as pointed
out by Magnusson (1931) who introduced the
illegitimate name Lecidea perlata H.Magn.
(non Hue 1915). Haugan and Timdal (1994)
wisely took up this epithet when they placed
the species in Tephromela, and Santesson et al.
(2004) transferred their epithet to Calvitimela,
a later segregate. None of them knew about
Norman’s older, valid name, and we think it
would be unwise to change this now, basing it
on an untypical specimen. To avoid this we
intend to propose Norman’s name for rejection.

GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009) Lichens mainly known from Norwegian types 10
Lecidea hardangeriana H.Magn.
Type: Norway, Finse, Hardangerjøkelen, alt.
1250–1300 m, 1925, E. Frey 13606 (UPS!
holotype). TLC: miriquidic acid.
The poorly developed specimen shows close
resemblance to Lecidea subplumbea Anzi
according to H. Hertel (pers. comm.), a name
which most probably is a synonym of
Miriquidica griseoatra, a rather variabel
species in the poorly understood arctic-alpine
M. leucophaea complex (see Hertel &
Rambold 1987). We can confirm that the
holotype belongs in Miriquidica as it exhibits
all the characters of that genus as defined by
Hertel & Rambold (1987). More material is
necessary to evaluate the taxonomy at species
level, and we suspect this will prove to fall
within the variation of a more widespread
taxon.
Lecidea ileiformis Fr.
Type: Norway, Dovre, M. N. Blytt (UPS!,
holotype). TLC: Atranorin, psoromic and
stictic acids, zeorin.
This is a lecidioid member of the Lecanoraceae,
and although it has a terricolous habitat, we
regard it as a Calvitimela because of the
internal characters of the apothecia. The spores
(9–12 × 4–7 µm) falls within the variation
given by Haugan & Timdal (1994) for C.
aglaea, but the chemistry differs. At the
moment it is best regarded as a further
chemotype of that species, but this variation is
in need of further studies
Lecidea invenusta H.Magn.
Type: Norway, Granvin, near the top of
Smøreggen, 1947, J. J. Havaas (UPS!,
holotype). TLC: miriquidic acid.
This type is in a rather poor condition and
much eaten by snails. The remaining thallus
contains, however, miriqidic acid and the
specimen certainly belongs in the Miriquidica
leucophaea complex, just as Lecidea
hardangeriana.
Lecidea ludificans H.Magn.
Type: Norway, Oppland, Jotunheimen, at the
top of Galdhøpiggen, alt. 2468 m, 1947, G.
Degelius (UPS!, holotype, Fig. 8). TLC:
norstictic acid.
This is a characteristic species with shining
brown thallus and distinct, thick exciple (to
about 100 µm) on the large, flat apothecia. It is
certainly a member of the Lecidea praenubila
complex, but stands out as most distinct among
the many closely related, variable species (cf.
Hertel 1977).
It has not been recollected recently,
certainly because of the rather inaccessable
locality on the top of Scandinavia’s highest
mountain. It is remarkable that two such rare
species with arctic-alpine relationships are
found there (see also L. altissima above), a fact
which strongly indicates that this high
mountain was an ice-free nunatak, at least for
parts of the quarternary glaciation. Curiously
this has not been one of the peaks included in
the heated debate among botanists and
Figure 8. Lecidea ludificans, part of holotype.
Bar = 2 mm.

11 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders Nordin GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009)
geologists on nunataks, probably since it does
not harbour a particularly interesting flora of
flowering plants (Jørgensen 1932). A. Nesje
(pers. comm.) has informed us that
Galdhøpiggen indeed was a nunatak, and we
accordingly regard Lecidea altissima and L.
ludificans as the most likely endemic
Norwegian lichens, though we cannot outrule
that they have been overlooked or are
undetected on other high peaks outside Norway.
Lecidea mougeotinoides H.Magn.
Type: Norway, Møre og Romsdal, Synnylven, Geiranger,
alt. 100 m, 1947, A. H. Magnusson 20805a
(UPS!, holotype). TLC: no substances detected.
Most probably an Adelolecia, according to H.
Hertel (pers. comm.), but certainly distinct
from A. kolaënsis (Nyl.) Hertel & Rambold, a
matter needing further study on preferably
richer material.
Lecidea sarcodea Nyl.
Type: Sør-Trøndelag, Dovre, Kindberg (H-
NYL 21337, holotype, non vidi).
Unfortunately the type has been mislaid in H
(O. Vitikainen, pers. comm.) and has accordingly
not been available for study. Th. M. Fries
(1871: 428), who had not seen the type,
suspected that it would hardly prove to be more
than a variety of Biatora vernalis, differing in
the plane apothecia and larger spores. Even
Degelius (1957), who referred one Icelandic
specimen to Lecidea sarcodea and then studied
the type, expressed some doubt about its
taxonomic status. The habitat (alpine heath)
and the very large spores (18–34 × 7–8 µm)
rules, however, out that it belongs in Biatora
vernalis. According to C. Printzen (pers.
comm.) it might be a Bryonora. Indeed,
Degelius’ Icelandic material (UPS) proved to
be a Bryonora. From the ecology and the
spore-size it is reasonable to conclude that
Nylander’s name may represent Bryonora
curvescens, a species that is known to occur in
the Dovre-region (Högsnyta, 1863, Th. M.
Fries, UPS) and L. sarcodea would then be a
synonym of that name.
Irrespective of its nomenclature, which can
only be settled conclusively when the type is
refound, Lecidea sarcodea is certainly not
resticted to Dovre, but the species has a wide
arctic-alpine distribution (Holtan-Hartwig
1991: 301–305).
Lecidea subapplanata H.Magn.
Type: Norway, Møre og Romsdal, Grytten,
Trollstien, alt. 850 m, 1947, A. H. Magnusson
20721 (UPS!, holotype). TLC: miriquidic acid.
A rather unusual crustose species which is
difficult to place. It is certainly not a Lecidea
s.str. The immersed to sessile, aspicilioid
apothecia with porpidioid asci, suggest the
genus Immersaria, but the thallus contains
miriquidic acid and a closer examination of the
asci revealed an apical apparatus typical of
Miriquidica (lacking a distinct central channel).
It is somewhat similar to Miriquidica
complanata (Körber) Hertel & Rambold but
has a brownish red pigment (K+ intensifying)
in the hypothecium. The material is rather
scanty, so further collections are necessary to
resolve the matter fully.
Lecidea subreagens H.Magn.
Type: Norway, Troms, Tromsø, Lyngen,
Mikkelvik, 1915, B. Lynge (O?, not located).
The identity of this species can only be judged
when the type is refound, but Magnusson’s
(1930) rather detailed description indicates that
it hardly belongs to Lecidea s.str. Magnusson
compares the thallus to that of L. armeniaca
and later claims that the relationship is
uncertain, but that the species appears closest
to L. (Biatora) cheiloplaca Vain.
Lecidea tuberculifera H.Magn.
Type: Norway, Akershus, Aker, Sjådalen,
1947, A. H. Magnusson (UPS!, holotype).
TLC: atranorin and zeorin.

GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009) Lichens mainly known from Norwegian types 12
This is another of the lecideoid Lecanoraceae
of the L. elata-group. H. Hertel (pers. comm.)
regards it as best placed in Lecanora formosa
(Bagl. & Carestia) Knoph & Leuckert, even
though the thallus lacks psoromic acid (cf.
Knoph & Leuckert 2000). This would mean a
most interesting addition to the relic arcticalpine
element in the Oslofjord region. Hopefully
better specimens can be found to confirm
the identity of the scanty and poorly developed
material.
Lepraria bergensis Tønsberg
Type: Norway, Hordaland, Bergen, Haukeland/
Landås, Vognstølen, base of hill Ravneberget,
2000, T. Tønsberg 2885 (BG!, holotype).
Recently described species, belonging in the
difficult L. neglecta complex. Though originally
only known from one other locality in the
Bergen region, recent discoveries further south
in Norway as well as in England and Germany
(Spribille & Tønsberg 2007) prove that it is a
more widespread, though rare species. It is still
extant in the type locality within the city of
Bergen.
Metamelanea caesiella (Th.Fr.) Henssen
Type: Norway, Sør-Trøndelag, Dovre, Drivstuen,
1864, Th. M. Fries (UPS!, holotype of
Pyrenopsis caesiella Th.Fr.).
This must be a truly rare species. It is quite
distinct and characteristic (Henssen &
Jørgensen 1990) and not difficult to detect. It
has actually been collected in a second locality
in Norway, in Hovedøya near Oslo, and
distributed by Havaas in his exsiccate (449). It
has, however, not been recollected in any of
these localities in recent years. M. caesiella
appears to belong in a group of xerophilous
lichens favoured by high summer tempratures.
It has recently been discovered for the first
time outside Norway in the Ardennes (leg. P.
Diederich & van den Boom, M. Schulz pers.
comm.) and Schwäbische Alpen (Schulz et al.
2007), which confirms its status as a rare,
overlooked species. The original spelling of the
generic name is Metamelanea, and the often
used form Metamelaena (e.g. in Santesson et
al. 2004) is incorrect.
Micarea lynceola (Th.Fr.) Palice
Type: Norway, Akershus, Christiania (Oslo),
Tveten, 1868, N.G. Moe 257 (UPS!, holotype
of Lecidea lynceola).
This is an exceptionally small lichen which
requires the eyes of a lynx to be discovered
(hence the epithet), closely related to M.
bauschiana. It is also a transient pioneer, so it
is no wonder that M. lynceola has only been
collected once in Scandinavia. Palice (1999)
also reports it from a few localities in Central
Europe, so it is not endemic to Norway. The
type-locality itself is engulfed by the city Oslo
and at present unsuitable as a lichen site.
Micarea osloënsis (Th.Fr.) Hedl.
Type: Norway, Oslo, Ryenbjerget, 1847, N. G.
Moe (UPS!, holotype of Lecidea osloënsis, Fig. 9).
This tiny lichen, which was collected on soil in
remnants of a bonfire, is easily confused with
Figure 9. Micarea osloënsis, part of holotype.
Bar = 0.5 mm.

13 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders Nordin GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009)
Placynthiella uliginosa. This does not,
however, explain its rarity. Even if the locality
is now engulfed in the city of Oslo, there
should be plenty of fireplaces in the region
where it would be able to grow. It has as yet
only been found once, but Coppins (1983) in
his thorough monograph of the genus, accepted
it as a species, so this is one of the truly rare
lichens, as yet only known from Norway.
Pertusaria porospora Norman ex Erichsen
Type: Norway, Finnmark, Porsanger, Rassebakte,
in the Lakselv valley, 1871, J. M.
Norman (O!, holotype). TLC: lecanoric acid
and xanthones.
Erichsen’s description of this species is based
on Normans’s handwritten diagnosis and his
drawing of the spores (Fig. 10) that are
attached to the type specimen. Norman
apparently had a second specimen available
(‘ad Troldfj., Tanen’), but that has not been
traced. At present the type lacks asci, so the
characteristic, large (to 250 µm), thick-walled,
pored spores drawn and described by Norman
have not been observed by us. Erichsen (1936)
placed it close to P. dactylina which is neither
in accordance with the chemistry nor the
unusual spore wall. Most probably it is an
esorediate form of Varicellaria rhodocarpa of
which Norman collected typical material in the
same locality, but on a different tree (BG).
According to Tønsberg (1992) V. rhodocarpa
lacks soredia in its most reduced states.
Figure 10. Pertusaria porospora, Norman’s
drawing of a spore in the type collection.
Figure 11. Polyblastia sakkobanensis, part
of holotype. Bar = 0.5 mm.
Polyblastia sakkobanensis Zschacke
Type: Norway, Finnmark, Sakkobani, 1917, B.
Lynge (O!, holotype, Fig. 11).
A most interesting, easily overlooked species
with poorly developed thallus. According to
Savić & Tibell (2007) it is most possibly a
species of Sporodictyon, closest related to S.
minutum S.Savić & Tibell. It has not been
found recently and is in urgent need of
recollection.
Polyblastia subocellata Th.Fr.
Type: Norway, Sør-Trøndelag, Dovre, Kongsvoll,
1863, Th. M. Fries (UPS!, holotype).
This is a rather nondescript, terricolous species,
only known from the small type specimen.
According to Savić & Tibell (2007) it is
certainly a Sporodictyon closely related to S.
terrestris (Th.Fr.) Savić & Tibell, but with a
thin, whitish, leprose thallus. Since there is a
great variation in thallus appearance in
Sporodictyon, its taxonomic status is uncertain.
It has in vain been searched for recently in the
type locality by Savić and Tibell.

GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009) Lichens mainly known from Norwegian types 14
Figure 12. Polyblastia terrigena, from
illustration in Rabenhorst Kryptogamenflora.
Polyblastia terrigena Zschacke
Type: Norway, Troms, Målselven, J. M. Norman
(type not located).
Since the type is missing it is difficult to
evaluate this taxon. The description is quite
short, pointing out a close relationship with the
saxicolous P. verrucosa from which it should
differ mainly in the form of the involucrellum
(Fig. 12), a character of little value in our
opinion. However, according to S. Savić (pers.
comm.) it might be one of the few examples of
a terricolous member of the Thelidium-group
where this character might be of importance.
The rediscovery of a specimen either in the
herbarium or in the field is, however, necessary
to settle the matter.
Pyrenopsis reducta Th.Fr.
Type: Norway, Tromsø, Fløjfjellet, 1860, Th.
M. Fries (UPS!, holotype).
This small species appears superficially to be a
poorly developed form of Pyrenopsis
haematina and it is accordingly mostly
overlooked or passed by as “immature”.
However, detailed studies (Jørgensen 2007)
have shown that it is not even closely related to
that species, and it was therefore accepted as a
distinct species. Other material included by
Santesson et al. (2004) proved to be incorrectly
identified. It has not been recollected in the
type locality recently.
Rinodina malangica (Norman) Arnold
Type: Norway, Troms, Målselven, J. M. Norman
(O!, holotype of Rinodina leprosa *
malangica).
This is a well-defined, insignificant species
(see Mayrhofer & Moberg 2002), which is
easily overlooked, particularly when sterile,
and since it is very similar to R. colobina. It has
not been recollected in the type locality
recently or in any other Scandinavian locality,
which is quite surprising since there appears to
be plenty of habitats where it might grow. It is
quite common in the Alps on Rhododendron
ferrugineum, a species not found in our region,
but the type was collected on Alnus. Its rarity in
our region is hardly real, and it should be
searched for on subalpine bushes with acidic
bark.
Thelidium scotodes (Nyl.) Arnold
Type: Norway, Troms, Lyngenfjorden, Norrlin
(H-NYL 2135!, holotype of Verrucaria
scotodes Nyl.).
This is an inconspicuous species in the T.
zwackhii complex, though combining the
characters (small fruitbodies with basal
involucrellum and rather large, mainly 3septate
spores, Fig. 13) in such a way that it
gives the impression of being a well-defined
species, the rarity of which may be caused by
its anonymous appearance. It may be a
maritime species, which is rare in this genus
Figure 13. Thelidium scotodes, drawing by
A. Orange attatched to the type specimen.

15 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders Nordin GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009)
(only the clearly different Japanese T. pacifica
Harada is known to us), though the original
label does not clearly indicate that it grew on
the shore, only by the fjord. However, the
accompanying species indicates a seepage rock
in the aerohaline zone. It has not been
recollected in the type locality recently, which
is urgently needed as it may prove to be an
unusual, specialized species in its genus.
Thelidium sordidum Th.Fr.
Type: Norway, Finnmark, Varanger, Aldsok,
1868, Th. M. Fries (UPS!, holotype, Fig. 14).
According to Orange, who revised the type
specimen, this is probably an overmature
specimen of a Verrucaria species of the V.
murorum group, normally with simple spores.
Since V. murorum is much more southern in
Scandinavia the identity of the type specimen
remains obscure.
Thelidium xyloderma Norman
Type: Norway, Opland, Land, Aavella, 1880,
J. M. Norman (S!, holotype).
The type is a non-lichenized fungus growing on
lignum covered by an algal sheet. This is
accordingly no lichen.
Thrombium ebeneum Norman
Type: Norway, Vestfold, Larvik, Jordfalden,
1882, J. M. Norman (UPS!, holotype?).
This species was established by Norman (1884)
on the basis of its blackish green pigmentation
of the fruitbody wall and the 4-spored asci
(also observed by us), which separates it from
T. epigaeum, a combination of independent
characters which normally would indicate an
autonomous species. Since it, however, has not
been collected anywhere else, this establishes
doubt as to whether it was an accidental
variation of that species. The matter can only
be conclusively solved when more material is
discovered, so a search in the region is urgently
required. There ought to be another specimen
Figure 14. Thelidium sordidum, drawing by
A. Orange attatched to the type specimen.
in a Norwegian herbarium, so we are uncertain
about the status of the one found in UPS, where
Norman usually did not place his types.
Verrucaria atlantica (H.Magn.)
Type: Norway, Rogaland, Randaberg, 1939,
A. H. Magnusson 16858 (UPS!, isotype for
Dermatocarpon atlanticum H.Magn., Fig. 15).
This interesting species has had a chequered
nomenclatural history. When describing it
Magnusson (1949) was obviously unaware of
the older Dermatocarpon atlanticum Werner.
Werner (1951) then introduced a new name,
Dermatocarpon magnussonii. Unaware of that,
Magnusson (1952) presented another substitute,
Dermatocarpon litorale. The combination
into Verrucaria (Santesson et al.
2004) was fortunately not formally made. As
seen above, the basionym is illegitimate and
the species appears not to belong in Verrucaria
s.str., as understood by Gueidan et al. (2007).
As pointed out by Breuss (1990), it is closest
related to ‘Dermatocarpon’ norrlandicum
H.Magn., a rare and poorly understood species
only known from its type specimen from
Lycksele Lappmark, Sweden. A third species
in this group in our region, Dermatocarpon
nuoljae H.Magn., is also only known from its
type (from Torne Lappmark). The whole group
is in urgent need of recollection and study, as it
is difficult to evaluate the taxonomy based on
these three specimens, and the material is too
old for molecular studies. V. atlantica, though,
appears to be rather distantly related to the two

GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009) Lichens mainly known from Norwegian types 16
Figure 15. Verrucaria atlantica, part of
isotype. Bar = 2 mm.
alpine members of the group, and it seems to be
phytogeographically misplaced, with no close
relatives in the British Isles. It is accordingly crucial
that it is searched for in the Stavanger region. The
holotype in UPS has been mislaid.
Verrucaria lyngei Servit
Type: Norway, Finnmark, Kåfjord, Sakkobani,
1917, B. Lynge (not traced).
The type has not been possible to trace, but in
O there are two other specimens labelled (in
Lynge’s handwriting) Verrucaria lyngei
Zschacke, collected by Lynge in Voss, Lid in
1919. It has, however, not been possible to find
Zschacke’s name published, nor is there any
indication that Servit just took up an older
herbarium name. So there is no evidence that
Servit ever studied these specimens. Since
Servit published the name after Lynge’s death
it is impossible that Lynge had any knowledge
of his name. Accordingly, the identity of this
species, based only on the description, remains
unclear, although there is an illustration to
assist the interpretation.
Verrucaria magnussoniana Servit
Type: Norway, Akershus, Asker, Nesön, 1947,
A. H. Magnusson (not traced).
Though the type has not been traced there can
be no doubt that Servit’s name is based on a
duplicate of the holotype of the next name.
Servit was evidently unaware of that Magnusson
himself a few years (1948) before had
published a name for this, so the name is a
taxonomic synonym of Verrucaria osloënsis
(for further comments see below).
Verrucaria osloënsis H.Magn.
Type: Norway, Akershus, Asker, S of Nesön
(Nesøya), Djupalen islet, alt. 2 m, 17.VII.1947,
A. H. Magnusson 20849 (O!, holotype)
Magnusson (1948) compared this species with
Verrucaria thromboides A.Massal., a rare
lichen described from Italy. It would, however,
have been closer at hand to check it against the
related, better known V. macrostoma, which
was already known from the region. We have
not found any differences of taxonomic
importance between the two of them, and
without having studied the type or the variation
on a larger scale, we think Magnusson’s
species should be included in V. macrostoma,
pending a revision of the whole group.
Conclusion
About 50 lichen species are known with
certainty mainly from their Norwegian type
specimens. We accept only a few (15) of these
as distinct species (Table 1), most of which are
certainly not endemic, except the two Lecidea
species from the summit of Galdhøpiggen
mountain. The others belong in difficult, poorly
understood species complexes and are in need
of further studies before their true status can be
decided. Most of them appear to be dubious or
synonyms of other accepted taxa, or indeed
names that ought to be applied for more
widespread species. We therefore suspect that
the majority of these probable endemics will
disappear after closer studies of fresh material,
since it is highly unlikely that Norway has such
a high number of endemic lichen species.

17 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders Nordin GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009)
Table 1. Overview of the status of the treated species. Accepted species in bold.
Treated species Status
Acarospora impressula Species concept needs revision
Acarospora rosulata Well-defined species
Acarospora verruciformis Species concept needs revision
Aspicilia alexandri = Aspilidea myrinii
Aspicilia austronorvegica = Aspilidea myrinii
Aspicilia lecideoidea Type not located, probably Aspilidea myrinii
Aspicilia mazarina = Aspicilia aquatica nom. cons. prop.
Aspicilia nordlandica Well-defined species
Aspicilia scabrida = Aspicilia epiglypta
Aspicilia subarctica = Aspicilia zonata
Aspicilia tromsoënsis = Aspicilia zonata
Bacidia luridoglaucella = Bacidina inundata
Bacidia verecundula Well-defined species
Biatora troendelagica Well-defined species
Buellia tesserata Well-defined species
Caloplaca dovrensis More material needed, uncertain
Caloplaca havaasii Well-defined species
Helocarpon pulverulum Probably a growthform of H. crassipes
Ionaspis granvina Well-defined species
Lecanora dovrensis Uncertain status
Lecanora inamoenea Uncertain status
Lecanora paupera Name not applicable to any taxon at present
Lecidea altissima Well-defined species, not a Lecidea s.str.
Lecidea atrocuprea = Tremolecia atrata
Lecidea epiploica = Calvitimela perlata nom. cons. prop.
Lecidea hardangeriana = Miriquidica leucophaea s.lat.
Lecidea ileiformis Calvitimela cf. aglaea, more material needed
Lecidea invenusta = Miriquidica leucophaea s.lat.
Lecidea ludificans Well-defined species, not a Lecidea s.str.
Lecidea mougeotinoides Adelolecia sp., more material needed
Lecidea sarcodea = Bryonora curvescens
Lecidea subapplanata Miriquidica cf. complanata, more material needed
Lecidea subreagens Uncertain status, type not located
Lecidea tuberculifera = Lecanora formosa
Lepraria bergensis Well-defined species
Metamelanea caesiella Well-defined species
Micarea lynceola Well-defined species
Micarea osloënsis Well-defined species
Pertusaria porospora ? Varicellaria rhodocarpa abnormally developed
Polyblastia sakkobanensis A Sporodictyon sp. with uncertain status, more material needed
Polyblastia subocellata = Sporodictyon cf. terrestris
Polyblastia terrigena Uncertain status, possibly a Thelidium
Pyrenopsis reducta Well-defined species
Rinodina malangica Well-defined species
Thelidium scotodes ? Well-defined species, more material needed
Thelidium sordidum A Verrucaria sp. with uncertain status
Thelidium xyloderma Non-lichenized fungus
Thrombium ebeneum Uncertain status
Verrucaria atlantica ? Well-defined species, more material needed, not a Verrucaria
Verrucaria lyngei Uncertain status, type not located
Verrucaria magnussoniana = Verrucaria macrostoma
Verrucaria osloënsis = Verrucaria macrostoma

GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009) Lichens mainly known from Norwegian types 18
Acknowledgements
We are indebted to the cited herbaria for loan
of material, and particularly to our generous
colleagues H. Blom, S. Ekman, H. Hertel, R.
Moberg, A. Orange, Z. Palice, C. Printzen, S.
Savić, U. Søchting, L. Tibell, E. Timdal, T.
Tønsberg, and O. Vitikainen for expert advice,
which has been indespensable for the
comments to the type specimens. A. Botnen
provided highly appreciated services in
herbarium BG and J. Berge and B. Helle kindly
assisted with some of the illustrations.
References
Ahlner, S. 1948. Utbredningstyper bland
nordiska barrträdslavar. Acta Phytogeographica
Suecica 22: 1–257.
Ahlner, S. 1949. Contributions to the lichenflora
of Norway I. Solorinella asteriscus
Anzi, new to Scandinavia. Svensk Botanisk
Tidskrift 43: 157–162.
Arup, U. 1997. The status of Caloplaca
havaasii. Graphis Scripta 18: 33–37.
Breuss, O. 1990. Die Flechtengattung Catapyrenium
(Verrucariaceae) in Europa.
Stapfia 23: 1–153.
Coppins, B. J. 1983. A taxonomic study of the
lichen genus Micarea in Europe. Bulletin of
the British Museum (Natural History),
Botany Series 11(2): 17–214.
Degelius, G. 1935. Das ozeanische Element der
Strauch- und Laubflechtenflora von Skandinavien.
Acta Phytogeographica Suecica 7:
1–411.
Degelius, G. 1948. Lichenologiska anteckningar
från en resa i södra Norge. Botaniska
Notiser 1948: 137–156.
Degelius, G. 1956. Om lavfloran i övre
Setesdal (Syd-Norge). Botaniska Notiser
109: 349–367.
Degelius, G. 1957. The epiphytic lichen flora
of the birch stands in Iceland. Acta Horti
Gothoburgensis 22(1): 1–51.
Degelius, G. 1982. The lichen flora of the
island Vega in northern Nordland, northern
Norway. Acta Regiae Societatis Scientarum
et Litterarum Gothoburgensis. Botanica 2:
1–127.
Erichsen, C. F. E. 1936. Pertusariaceae. In:
Rabenhorst: Kryptogamen-Flora, 2 ed., vol.
9, Abt.V,1: 321–699.
Fries, Th. M. 1871. Lichenographia Scandinavica
I. Upsaliae.
Gueidan, C., Savić, S. Thüs, H., Roux, C.,
Keller, C., Tibell, L., Prieto, M., Heiðmarsson,
S., Breuss, O., Orange, A., Fröberg, L.,
Amtoft Wynns, A., Navarro-Rosinés, P.,
Krzewicka, B., Pykälä, J. & Lutzoni, F.
2007. The main genera of Verrucariaceae
(Ascomycota) as supported by recent
morphological and molecular studies. In:
Savić, S., Phylogeny and taxonomy of
Polyblastia and allied taxa (Verrucariaceae).
Digital Comprehensive Summaries
of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty
of Science and Technology, III.
Hafellner, J. & Türk, R. 2001. Die lichenisierte
Pilze Österreichs – eine Checkliste der
bisher nachgewiesene Arten mit Verbreitungsangaben.
Stapfia 76: 3–167.
Haugan, R. & Timdal, E. 1994. Tephromela
perlata and T. talayana with notes on the
Tephromela aglaea complex. Graphis
Scripta 6: 17–26.
Havaas, J. J. 1909. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der
westnorwegischen Flechtenflora. Bergens
Museums Aarbok 1909(1): 1–36.
Havås, J. J. 1935. Lavvegetationen på Stadlandet.
Bergens Museums Årbok 1935.
Naturvidenskapelig rekke 2: 1–43.
Henssen, A. & Jørgensen, P. M. 1990. New
combinations and synonyms in the
Lichinaceae. Lichenologist 22: 137–148.
Hertel, H. 1977. Gesteinsbewohnende Arten
der Sammelgattung Lecidea (Lichenes) aus
Zentral-, Ost und Südasien. Khumbu Himal
6(3): 145–364.
Hertel, H. & Rambold, G. 1985. Lecidea sect.
Armeniacae; lecideoide Arten der Flechtengattungen
Lecanora und Tephromela
(Lecanorales). Botanische Jahrbücher für
Systematik 107(1–4): 469–501.

19 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders Nordin GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009)
Hertel, H. & Rambold, G. 1987. Miriquidica
genus novum Lecanoraceum. Mitteilungen
Botanischen Staatssammlung München 23:
378–392.
Holien, H. & Tønsberg, T. 1996. Boreal regnskog
i Norge – habitatet for Trøndelagselementets
lavarter. Blyttia 54: 157–177.
Holtan-Hartwig, J. 1991. A revision of the
lichens Bryonora castanea and curvescens.
Mycotaxon 40: 295–305.
Hue, A. M. 1910. Lichenes morphologice et
anatomice disposuit, part 3. Nouvelle
Archive de la Museum Naturelle. Série
5(2): 1–120.
Jonsell, B. 1968. Studies in the Northwest
European species of Rorippa s.str.
Symbolae Botanicae Upsalienses 19(2): 1–
221.
Jørgensen, P. M. 1989. Notes on the genus
Ionaspis in Scandinavia. Graphis Scripta 2:
118–121.
Jørgensen, P. M. 1996. The oceanic element in
the Scandinavian lichen flora revisited.
Symbolae Botanicae Upsalienses 31(3):
297–317.
Jørgensen, P. M. (ed.) 2007. Botanikkens
historie i Norge. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen.
Jørgensen, P. M. & Henssen, A. 1993. Physma
omphalarioides – its taxonomic position
and phytogeography. Graphis Scripta 5:
12–17.
Jørgensen, R. 1932. Karplantenes høidegrenser
i Jotunheimen. Nyt Magazin for Naturvidenskaberne
72: 1–128.
Knoph, J.-G. & Leuckert, C. 2000. Chemotaxonomische
Studien in der Gattung
Lecidella III. Herzogia 14: 1–26.
Kleiven, M. 1959. Studies in the xerophilic
vegetation in northern Gudbrandsdal. Nytt
Magasin for botanikk 7: 1–60.
Magnusson, A. H. 1929. Monograph of the
genus Acarospora. Kungliga Svenska
Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, Serie 3,
7(4): 1–400.
Magnusson, A. H. 1931. Studien über einigen
Arten der Lecidea armenica und elata-
Gruppe. Acta Horti Gothoburgensis 6: 93–
144.
Magnusson, A. H. 1939. Studies in species of
Lecanora, mainly the Aspicilia gibbosa
group. Kungliga svenska Vetenskapsakademiens
Handlingar, Serie 3, 17(5): 1–
182.
Magnusson, A. H. 1948. Some lichens from the
environs of Oslo. Blyttia 6: 41–48.
Magnusson, A. H. 1949a. En lavexkursion på
Norges sydkust. Nyt Magazin for
Naturvidenskaberne 87: 197–225.
Magnusson, A. H. 1949b. Some new Norwegian
lichens. Blyttia 7: 29–35.
Magnusson, A. H. 1950. On some species of
Blastenia and Caloplaca with black
apothecia. Botaniska Notiser 1950: 369–
386.
Magnusson, A. H. 1951. New or otherwise
interesting lichens XV. Botaniska Notiser
1951: 64–82.
Nordin, A. & Jørgensen, P. M. 2008. Proposal
to conserve Aspicilia aquatica against
Lichen mazarinus (Ascomycota: Pertusariales:
Megasporaceae). Taxon 57: 989.
Nordin, A., Tibell, L. & Owe-Larsson, B.
2007. A preliminary phylogeny of Aspicilia
in relation to morphological and secondary
product variation. Bibliotheca Lichenologica
96: 247–266.
Norman, J. M. 1884. Nova genera et species
lichenum florae norvegicae. Öfversigt af
Kungliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Förhandlingar
1884(8): 31–42.
Palice, Z. 1999. New and noteworthy records
of lichens in the Czech Repuplic. Preslia
71: 289–336.
Printzen, C., Etayo, J. & Holien, H. 1998. Two
new Biatora species from western Norway
and Madeira. Lichenologist 30: 215–219.
Purvis, O. W. & James, P. W. 1992.
Acarospora Massal (1852). In: Purvis, O.
W., Coppins, B. J., Hawksworth, D. L.,
James, P. W. & Moore, D. (eds), The
Lichen flora of Great Britain and Ireland.
Natural History Museum Publications,
London, pp. 58–63.

GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009) Lichens mainly known from Norwegian types 20
Rico, V. J., Calatayud, V. & Giralt, M. 2003.
Buellia tesserata and Dimelaena radiata,
two closely related species. Lichenologist
35: 117–124.
Santesson, R. 1984. The lichens of Sweden and
Norway. Stockholm & Uppsala.
Santesson, R. 1993. The lichens and lichenicolous
fungi of Sweden and Norway. SBTförlaget,
Lund.
Santesson, R., Moberg, R., Nordin, A., Tønsberg,
T. & Vitikainen, O. 2004. Lichenforming
and lichenicolous fungi of Fennoscandia.
Museum of Evolution, Uppsala
University.
Savić, S. & Tibell, L. 2007. Taxonomy and
species delimitation in Sporodictyon
(Verrucariaceae) in northern Europe and the
adjacent Arctic. In: Savić, S., Phylogeny
and taxonomy of Polyblastia and allied
taxa (Verrucariaceae). Digital
Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala
Dissertations from the Faculty of Science
and Technology 370, II.
Scheidegger, C. 1991. Phytogeography of the
genus Buellia (Physciaceae) in Mediterranean
Europe. Botanica Chronica 10:
211–220.
Scheidegger, C. 1993. A revision of European
saxicolous species of the genus Buellia De
Not. and formerly included taxa.
Lichenologist 25: 315–364.
Schulz, M., Wirth, V. & Feuerer, T. 2007.
Erstfunde von Flechten und lichenicole
Pilzen in Deutschland. Herzogia 20: 329–
334.
Spribille, T. & Tønsberg, T. 2007. Lepraria
bergensis and L. obtusatica new to
Germany. Herzogia 20: 327–328.
Stafleu, F. & Cowan, R. S. 1979. Taxonomic
Literature II, H-Le. Regnum Vegetabile 98.
Thomson, J. W. 1997. American Arctic Lichens
2. The Microlichens. University of
Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Tønsberg, T. 1992. The sorediate and isidiate,
corticolous, crustose lichens in Norway.
Sommerfeltia 14: 1–331.
Tønsberg, T., Gauslaa, Y., Haugan, R., Holien,
H. & Timdal, E. 1996. The threatened
macrolichens of Norway – 1995. Sommerfeltia
23: 1–258.
Werner, J. L. 1951. Les origines de la flore
lichenique de la Tunisie d’apres connaissance
actuelles. Revue bryologie et lichenologie
30: 300–307.
Wikström, E. 1831. Årsberetning om framstegen
uti botanik 1826–1830. Stockholm.
Wirth, V. 1995. Die Flechten Baden-
Würtembergs 1. Verlag Eugen Ulmer,
Stuttgart.
Wunder, H. 1974. Schwarzfrüchtige, saxicole
Sippen der Gattung Caloplaca (Lichenes,
Teloschistaceae) in Mitteleuropa, der
Mittelmeergebiet und Vorderasien. Bibliotheca
Lichenologica 3: 1–186.