Cladonia identification request

[chrisjohnson]

The following two species were photographed at Loch Druidibeg in South Uist, growing in a fomer plantation area, some conifers, birch and alder remain, otherwise damp to wet acid moorland - heather and moss mainly.
I think the first photograph is Cladonia coniocraea.
I though the last 2 were Cladonia portentosa, but perhaps C. uncialis uncialis maybe more likely.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Thank you
CJ

[JennyS]

Hi Chris, you're right with Cladonia coniocraea and the second is C. uncialis though I'm not sure which subspecies ......
Cladonia uncialis ssp. uncialis is less frequent than Cladonia uncialis ssp. biuncialis
but I don't know their distribution in Scotland.

Jenny

[chrisjohnson]

Thank you Jenny.

The Cladonia uncialis problem can probably only be resolved by collecting a specimen. As we visit this site regularly, this should not be difficult. Although I may need some help to confirm the id.

SSp uncialis has been recorded on mainland west Scotland, on Skye but not in the Western Isles. SSp biuncialis has been recorded in the Western Isles. However the islands are very under-recorded for almost everything other than birds, vascular plants and a few invertebrate groups.

I've only been looking lichens for a couple of weeks, so like to have my ids confirmed. So far justing using macro photography, but realise that I probably have to collect specimens. At the moment I'm using a variety of web sites as an aid (including your excellent site) whilst waiting for a copy of Dobson to arrive. So the help I receive from the forum is greatly appreciated.

CJ

Christine (attempts the id)
Chris (takes the photos and is mainly interested in moths)

[chrisjohnson]

We visited the site agin to collect specimens and take more photographs.
I think that Jenny was correct with her identification of Cladonia uncialis and I would probably attribute it to the subspecies biuncialis.

I also collecteda second Cladonia which I think is portentosa

The final photograph showes the two species together showing differences in size

Any further comments would be appreciated.
Thanks

CJ

[AlanS]

I am happy to agree with the Cladonia identifications:

Cladonia coniocraea
C. uncialis ssp. biuncialis
C. portentosa.

My thanks to Jenny for links to my C. uncialis pages, but this thread has shown up a problem that will have to result in a note on my site.

I was astonished to see C. uncialis ssp. uncialis is recorded from Skye, which is only marginally more likely than a herd of giraffes in my back garden (and no, I don't live next to a zoo).
I have had a look at the NBN Gateway and my immediate fears are confirmed - loads of spurious records from all over Britain, for a taxon that is strongly continental in distribution and just reaching Britain in a very few localities - on periodically dry, sandy or gravelly soils in the north-east, reliably south to Northumberland (though like the very similarly distributed C. mitis it might possibly occur or have occured in the formerly rich lichen heaths at Dungeness).

The Skye records prove to be supposedly from Francis Rose's notebooks, which one might think were reliable, but the dates make it virtually impossible that Francis Rose would have recorded "C. uncialis ssp. uncialis". He will have recorded "C. uncialis" and someone else has 'interpreted' the record.

What we have here is the standard problem with nominate subspecies. Someone records "Cladonia x", no subspecies mentioned. Then some numpty who should never have been allowed anywhere near a database, sees that Cladonia x has two subspecies, x and y. And because this numpty has the IQ of a housebrick, he/she/it decides that as the record isn't stated to be "Cladonia x ssp. y", then it must be Cladonia x ssp. x. And so yet more garbage is added to the National Biodiversity Network, which has no error checking mechanism.

This is, as I say, a general problem with nominate subspecies, as much with plants as with lichens, and no doubt other groups, but, having looked at the sources, I can state quite catagorically that the NBN maps for:
Cladonia uncialis ssp. uncialis
Cladonia arbuscula ssp. arbuscula
Cladonia crispata var. crispata
are so seriously flawed that they should not be given any credence whatsoever.
Cladonia ciliata var. ciliata is also shown as massively over-recorded.

Any lichen record that does not come from the BLS Mapping Scheme (which cannot be accessed from the NBN Gateway without specific permission) or from the Scottish Sites Lichen Database, should be treated as suspect and, for critical taxa, will often be best ignored. I regret this includes data from JNCC surveys.

Sorry for the diatribe, but it annoys me so much that we get this stupidity even from statutory sources.

Incidentally, if time allows, I shall be adding various Cladonia subgenus Cladina species and subspecies to my site quite soon. Got to finish the chemical testing. (Still trying to find C. azorica though - I bet Jenny has it in her area).

Alan

[chrisjohnson]

Thanks Alan, both for the identification and pearls of wisdom.
An elegant turn of phrase made us both chuckle and made me remember the days of being chastised for lack of scientific rigour some 35 years ago!
I will not be tempted to begin my own diatribe on promiscuous use of subspecific and varietal names and with the humility of the novice will assume that lichenologists are more scrupulous with their taxonomy than most.
I agree that there are major problems with the NBN gateway, however in cases where access to other data sources is unavailable, it can be useful, provided that one understands its limitations. For the novice, it can at least flag that an identificaton may require further consideration or verification particularly when there is only one record for that species from the Isle of Numpties.
I had not appreciatated that the Scottish Lichen Database was accessible through NBN - so now I can check my records more carefully.
Many thanks

Christine