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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
Page 1 and 2: Lichens in Scandinavia known mainly
Page 3 and 4: 3 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders No
Page 5 and 6: 5 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders No
Page 7: 7 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders No
Page 11 and 12: 11 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders N

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?