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

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.