aspeca

Many thanks, Neil — very helpful as always.

Many thanks, Paul. I had discounted Myriolecis dispersa due to the hard flint substrate, though I suppose it’s possible that the pebble is somewhat buffered by dust.

For comparison, I’ve looked at some M. dispersa growing on a fragment of concrete slab that I took from the same location. For what it’s worth, its hymenium is taller but not hugely so — more like 70 µm rather than 60 µm.

LGBI3 indicates that M. salina has noticeably wider paraphyses than M. dispersa, and that this is a distinguishing feature. Best efforts to measure the paraphyses of my M. salina put them generally over 2 µm wide, and up to 3 µm — which is in the range for M. salina but not M. dispersa. The paraphyses of my M. dispersa measure up a bit narrower, but there’s not much in it.

And as you say — I wonder how often these things are measured. ITALIC doesn’t give any figure for M. dispersa paraphyses width, but the ITALIC figure for M. salina paraphyses is the same as the LGBI3 figure for M. dispersa paraphyses!

My M. dispersa was also clearly UV-, whereas my putative M. salina appears to be UV+ dull orange. Apart from indicating a difference between the two, though, I’m unsure what to make of it, inasmuch as M. salina is supposed to be UV- as well.

There are other southern records for M. salina from Hampshire and Somerset — presumably also from shingle. But as this would be a first record for Suffolk, I think I may hold out for now in the hope of finding a clearer specimen.

Thanks again and best regards,

Anthony

Dear Neil —

Thanks for this. Sad to hear that A. ciliaris is still in free fall. Will you continue to classify it as EN, or has it sadly become a candidate for the CR category?

Janet has gone back over the historical Suffolk records, and she confirms that this is indeed the first sighting in the county since 1985. (The 1993 date in the comment of one of the Sotterley records referred to a publication, not an observation. And the 2005 date referred to the year an undated record was received by the recording scheme, which turned out to refer back to the 1985 observation.)

A quick question about ammonia pollution. The BLS website species description previously indicated that A. ciliaris wasn’t ammonia-sensitive per se, and indeed that it liked a bit of nutrient enrichment when on e.g. lime or oak. But it also warned that particulate matter from inorganic fertiliser dust would become trapped in the tomentum and encourage the growth of algae over the cortex, smothering the lichen.

The BLS website species description now matches LGBI3, removing the reference to particulates and citing high ammonia levels in general. Has A. ciliaris been found to be more ammonia-sensitive than previously thought, or are background ammonia levels simply so high now that they exceed the lichen’s tolerances? Or perhaps a bit of both?

I’m meeting with the landowners tomorrow to discuss management. The local Natural England team is now also aware. I’d like to go back to the site for a more thorough search (with binoculars!) — this lichen was on a low branch, but the tree itself was elevated on a mound, which gave it some height. I wonder if there may be other thalli higher up in the same tree, or in other trees.

Please do feel free to use the photos — but ignore the ones here. I’ll send you a link to download full resolution versions, which will enlarge better for the BLS website.

Thanks again and best regards,

Anthony

Many thanks, Neil. Glad to have your confirmation.

Are there any plans afoot to sequence and compare European and American L. hybocarpa?

Many thanks, Neil. I can see the differences in the surface that you mean. Together with Alain’s comments, I think this points fairly clearly to C. portentosa. A fairly ‘exuberant’ form with which I wasn’t previously familiar.

I’m a bit concerned now, though, about the fluorescence question, so any comments you might have on the photos below would be much appreciated. Does perlatolic acid degrade over time in the herbarium?

Best regards,

Anthony

Many thanks, Alain. You may be right. With pale Cladonia, it can be difficult to distinguish true blue UV-fluorescence from mere blue UV-reflectance!

Below are some comparison photos that may help: C. portentosa, C. arbuscula subsp. squarrosa (reacts Pd+ red), and the possible C. mitis.

All the collected podetia are dry, and either months or years old. But just in case perlatolic acid degrades over time, I’ve also included a photo of fresh C. portentosa fluorescing clearly in the field. (If I can get sufficient shade on the specimen, I haven’t yet found it too problematic to capture the UV+ blue fluorescence of C. portentosa from fresh lichens.)

In all cases, I’m using a front-filtered 365nm UV-torch (Alonefire). I also equalised the white balance, tint and saturation of the three photographs of the collected podetia to allow for better comparison.

Considering that C. arbuscula is UV-, it stands to reason that it must be merely reflecting the UV-light (a bit like white paper), not fluorescing on its own. The C. portentosa, however, must be fluorescing UV+ blue from perlatolic acid. Perhaps that accounts for its somewhat more even blueness, especially in the photo of the fresh lichen in the field?

To my eyes — and this is just my own colour perception of course! — the possible C. mitis looks more like the C. arbuscula (i.e. merely reflecting) than it does the C. portentosa (i.e. fluorescing). But I accept that others may see the colours differently, and that the morphological similarities and differences may be better evidence one way or the other.

Thanks again,

Anthony

[attachment=3]Cladonia portentosa 20240921-B01 Westleton.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=2]Cladonia portentosa 20230802-A.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=1]Cladonia arbuscula subsp squarrosa 20250412-A.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=0]Cladonia mitis sp inc 20250628-B-5.jpg[/attachment]

Many thanks, Alain. My apologies — I think I unfortunately created confusion with my speculations.

I didn’t mean to suggest that orange body in the third photo is part of S. marinum. As mentioned, I believe it’s an encrusting sponge. I was only struck by the ‘black dots’ on it that looked at least superficially similar to S. marinum, and that put me in mind of Andre Aptroot’s contention that S. marinum isn’t (or isn’t only) an LF, and that it occurs on various substrates. But it’s perhaps best to leave all that aside.

I’ve attached an annotated photo here, encircling what appear to be some of the S. marium perithecia on W. mucosa. As you can see from the sand grains in the water, they’re very small. They look very much like some of the structures in your photo above, as well as in the following photos of S. marinum:

[list]