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

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.