Heath Navel Lichenomphalia help

diggleken · #1 (**permalink**) 13-12-2011, 03:50 PM

Hi everyone,
thrilled to find this tiny today when doing a Lichen hunt, appears to be Heath Navel, Lichenomphalia umbellifera, but there are a few similar, so any advice/help/confirmation welcome.

I've tried to sort it from a good few books including Dobson (Lichen)and it seems right from macro features.
It appears to be a bit late and is a bit washed out colourwise.

NBN doesnt have it in the 10km sq I found it, so that would be good.
Yorkshire Chris, before you ask!
Cheers
Ken

Ditiola · #2 (**permalink**) 13-12-2011, 04:10 PM

Hi Ken

I think that Lichenomphalia umbellifera is the most likely, it certainly looks right macroscopically. This is where it is useful to back it up with a study of the microscopical features.

Peter

poschiavanus · #3 (**permalink**) 13-12-2011, 04:21 PM

Not sure that I should comment - I've only seen this once - but, I don't feel the jizz is quite right.

Colours were much brighter on the ones I saw: my photos weren't very good because of contrast between the basidiome and the granular algal crust. The ones I saw were growing on bare peat where a runnel along a path had washed soil away.

AlanS likes the darker tinge of the apex of the stipe as a field character, but I never looked at them that closely, I was just thrilled to see this lichenised fungus.

Anyway, I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will be along soon to put one or other (or both of us) right!

JennyS · #4 (**permalink**) 13-12-2011, 04:41 PM

Hi Ken, this is just a thought rather than an ID but did you consider Lichenomphalia hudsoniana? Your first photo seems to show squamules though its hard to tell whether they are associated with the fruiting bodies or not ....

Lichenomphalia hudsoniana

diggleken · #5 (**permalink**) 13-12-2011, 06:07 PM

Thanks all - yes I considered hudsoniana Jenny - but agree thats a possibility - I note the stem in mine is quite thick, as hudsoniana is.
I'll check thallus tomorrow if I can, that should help now I know what I'm looking for.
Good work, thanks again.

Cheers
Ken

diggleken · #6 (**permalink**) 14-12-2011, 03:34 PM

Right then, thallus is not granular, clearly squamules showing, so Lichenomphalia hudsoniana is the one.

Thanks Jenny, brilliant!
They have all dried and finished today, what luck to find them in good shape.........
Cheers all
Ken

AlanS · #7 (**permalink**) 14-12-2011, 05:13 PM

Sorry, but I am reasonably certain that this is not any Lichenomphalia. Each of the species shows variation in habit and colour, but this lies outside the range of them all I think.

The squamules visible in the photograph have irregular, eroded margins and belong to a Cladonia of some sort, they are certainly not those of L. hudsoniana, which in any case is normally a montane species of peaty mineral soil, not very often below 1000 ft. Sometimes it can be stocky, but usually the fruitbodies are relatively slender, and while it varies in colour, I have never seen it as shown here.

There is no sign of the granular algal mat that characterises L. umbellifera, the habitat is wrong, the colour is wrong, and no sign of the coffee to reddish stem apex.

Posch has already kindly cited my website - I have all the currently recognised British species on there, plus note of a couple of others that may be found in Britain. I repeat my near certainty that these photographs are not any Lichenomphalia.

With these small, very variable, omphalioid species I find it is best to know the spore size and shape, and, I regret to say, whether it has clamp connections, before thinking seriously about its identity. It most likely is an Arrhenia species, and in view of the colours shown in the right-hand illustration and the fact that it looks like it might have a minutely pubescent stem (difficult to tell when wet), I suspect it is a pale or washed out variant of Arrhenia griseopallida. But without the microscopic characters, this is NOT an ID!

Alan

diggleken · #8 (**permalink**) 14-12-2011, 05:41 PM

Oh dear!
Thanks Alan, err, I think!

It was at about 1200ft though.
Back to the drawing board, but Arrhenia griseopallida doesnt look right in macro terms either..
Cheers
Ken

diggleken · #9 (**permalink**) 15-12-2011, 08:46 AM

Macro features only(!) this, Arrhenia rickenii, does look the spit with its markings, thick stem and striate cap, plus jizz:
Arrhenia rickenii (Singer ex Hora) Watling, 1989 (a toadstool)
Some more from me:

It does seem there are two Cladonia spp on the mossy substrate Alan, thanks again.
Any further thoughts anyone?
If not, Arrhenia spp will do!

(though obviously not retiruga)
Cheers
Ken

Chris Yeates · #10 (**permalink**) 15-12-2011, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diggleken

Macro features only(!) this, Arrhenia rickenii, does look the spit with its markings, thick stem and striate cap, plus jizz:
Arrhenia rickenii (Singer ex Hora) Watling, 1989 (a toadstool)
Some more from me:

It does seem there are two Cladonia spp on the mossy substrate Alan, thanks again.
Any further thoughts anyone?
If not, Arrhenia spp will do!

(though obviously not retiruga)
Cheers
Ken

the type of gill is important in Arrhenia; unfortunately also important are spore shape and presence or absence of clamps . . .

Chris