[ID] Cladonia sp

[Fauna]

Four more for id please

They where all taking from the same stretch of old drystone wall. They where growing fairly tight in between the copings making them difficult to get at...


Would this be Cladonia chlorophaea ?





Cladonia diversa?




I've not had a go at the next two...





This was the only Cladonia of this type i found growing on the wall, there is one in the background with more growth from the centre.




Regards Chris...

[diggleken]

Hi Chris, this needs an expert, but in the absence for the mo, I'll have some guesses (and thats what they are!) 3 might be floerkeana and 4 might be fimbriata.
First two look fimbriata-ish too, to my untrained eye, but perhaps different stages/growth?
I'll watch and learn with interest.
Cheers
Ken

[diggleken]

then again, chlorophaea is closer Chris...................

[Fauna]

Cheers Ken they certainly are a hard nut to crack these Cladonia lot

I decided on C. chlorophaea for the first one as it reminded me of the one Alan id for me before.

3...Looks good for C. floerkeana for me as well.

I will put another two pics up in a mo to go with 2 and 4.


Regards Chris.

[Fauna]

To go with image 2





To go with image 4...This one you can just make out the small growth in the centre of one



I should have put these in with the others

Regards Chris...

[AlanS]

Please excuse brief post, really shouldn't be here at all with urgent work still to finish for tomorrow.

1. C. chlorophaea group.

2. C. diversa

3. C. polydactyla - forming irregular cups so not C. floerkeana.

4. C. chlorophaea group - maybe a different segregate from photo 1, but without chemical and UV data, no point in speculating.

Alan

[Fauna]

Much appreciated for your time

I woud have sworn that 4 was something totaly different to 1. Just goes to show how varied these can get. I sure over time, armed with the right resources, i might get there in a decade or so.


Regards Chris...

[AlanS]

Originally Posted by Fauna

Much appreciated for your time

I woud have sworn that 4 was something totaly different to 1. Just goes to show how varied these can get. I sure over time, armed with the right resources, i might get there in a decade or so.


Regards Chris...

4 probably IS diffferent from 1.
I labelled both C. chlorophaea group, as what we call "C. chlorophaea" in Britain has usually been split into several species in Europe and North America. The new major British lichen flora (The Lichens of Great Britian and Ireland - a massive, technical tome, published by the British Lichen Society) recognises 5 species in the group.

The problem is that these "species" are variable and overlap morphologically and need the UV examination and chemical tests I mentioned in my previous post to be distinguished at all reliably. Also it is by no means certain that the names are being applied to the same entities in diferent countries and regions, The whole complex needs a large scale DNA investigation.

However I have to admit that 4 might well be C. pyxidata. This isn't always distinguishable from C. chlorophaea, and 4 does look rather like it, including the basal squamules, which are just right for true C. pyxidata (itself a regularly misunderstood species).
The proliferation from the centre of the cup is not something that C. pyxidata is likely to do, and I cannot clearly see the corticate granules that help define this species in any of the cups in the photograph, but there do seem to be some scales more typical of the pyxidata complex inside one of the cups. Also the proliferation may be marginal, not truly central.

I think it is difficult to give an ID either way.

Alan

[AlanS]

I have been coming back to this thread and looking further at no. 4. Sometimes I think my original suggestions is wrong and it is C. pyxidata, sometimes I think my original suggestion still stands.

Anyhow, I was out on Sunday doing a little recording in a poorly known moorland fringe area (perhaps not so much poorly known as just plain boring).

Anyhow, I saw some good, real C. pyxidata (an over-recorded species) and took a careful look to refresh my experience of fresh material, and, quite separately, I found what was definitely a segregate of C. chlorophaea that matches no. 4 here very closely.

So after a little wavering, I still hold to my original identification.

Alan

[Fauna]

I must appologise for late reply Alan, only just realised that you added more to this thread, and very informative to.

Thanks.


Regards Chris...