FUNGI AND LICHENS IN THE BALTICS AND BEYOND XVIII ...

known from a few localities; 4) easily visible species. The ecological features and the
distribution of species were also taken in account. For example, preference was given to
moderately rare species inhabiting highly populated and transformed territories over more rare
species inhabiting less disturbed parts of the region. We suppose that the lichen red list should
be combined on the base of rather other principles: 1) naturally rare species with scattered
decreasing distribution area in Russia or in the World; 2) regionally rare species which are
situated on the border of their distribution within LR; 3) species connected to rare and most
valuable plant communities and landscapes within LR; 4) species listed in RDB of Russia
(2008).
The recent lichenological investigations in LR make obvious that current red list
doesn’t cover the whole species diversity requiring protection. The increasing of the list to
90–95 species should make it more representative for purposes of revealing and protection of
the most valuable and unique communities as well as of conservation of the whole lichen
flora.
According to current rules the RDB must be re-published every ten years.
Unfortunately due to economical reasons the republishing of RDB of LR is shelved.
PHYLOGENETIC STUDIES OF THREE PENDENT Usnea SPECIES
F. HÖGNABBA 1 , H. RÄMÄ 2 , P. HALONEN 3 , H. LINDGREN 1 , S. VELMALA 1 ,
S. STENROOS 1 , L. MYLLYS 1
1 Botanical Museum, Finnish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 7, University of Helsinki,
FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
2 Senjavegen 25, N-9012 Tromsø, Norway
3 Botanical Museum, Department of Biology, P.O. Box 3000, University of Oulu, FI-90014
Oulu, Finland
E-mails: filip.hognabba@helsinki.fi, heini.rama@gmail.com, pekkahalonen@hotmail.fi,
hanna.lindgren@helsinki.fi, saara.velmala@helsinki.fi, soili.stenroos@helsinki.fi,
leena.myllys@helsinki.fi
The taxonomy of the pendent Usnea species U. barbata, U. chaetophora. and U.
dasypoga (lichen-forming ascomycetes) has remained unclear. The species have similar
chemistry and have been distinguished based on morphological features. The characters used
to separate the species are however not always clear-cut and the species delimitation is often
problematic. In this study the phylogenetic relationships of the three pendent Usnea species
are reconstructed to get a framework for better understanding the taxonomy of the species. To
reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 sequences in a parsimony analysis
were used. The variation in the sequence data was low. The results from the phylogenetic
analysis confirm the taxonomic problems of the species, as none of the three species form
monophyletic entities. However, most of the examined U. chaetophora specimens are
included in one clade. Also most of the U. dasypoga specimens are included in one
phylogenetic group. U. chaetophora and U. dasypoga might therefore be considered distinct
species although there are still some problems with the species definitions. The examined U.
barbata specimens are included in several distantly related clades and probably consist of
several species. Preliminary findings indicate that the taxonomy of the three pendent Usnea
species needs to be revised, however further studies including more loci is needed before final
conclusions can be made.