Quote:
Originally Posted by JennyS I must have been totally mad to get caught up trying to identify lichen! |
Yes, I have to agree, But once bitten, it's difficult to break the habit, isn't it?
Anyhow:
1. Looks like good and typical
Cladonia rangiformis to me. The diagnostic green 'islands' are visible on the surface.
I have not yet seen anything I would call
Cladonia furcata subsp.
subrangiformis, though I do see what some
others call "
Cladonia furcata subsp.
subrangiformis"! It is an evidently dubious taxon, variously interpreted, but a key feature would seem to be the white warts towards the base of the podetia. Dobson's description looks good for it. At least
some published photographs are fairly typical
furcata in my opinion. In England, the most satisfactory material is apparently in chalk downland.
It may be no more than a growth form controlled by habitat.
2. Not
C. pocillum - basal sqaumules are not imbricated, margins are not eroding. As to what it is, I would prefer to leave it for the time being. I have something similar to check out, with two possibilities in mind (one mundane, one much more poorly known), and until I have looked at my own material I shall keep silent.
3. Up to now I would have kept quiet on this too. However, having seen all four standard Neofuscelias in the past month, I shall no doubt display my overconfidence by pronouncing it
Neofuscelia pulla.
Once the BLS have sent me my copy of the new lichen flora (and time they hurried up), I fear I shall start having to call it
Xanthoparmelia pulla.
4. Yes,
Placynthium nigrum, and I am still not doing Collemas!
5. Yes to the
Petractis clausa. I would guess you are right about the
Verrucaria hochstetteri too, but I have not made much attempt with
Verrucaria yet.
Alan