Glos lichens

Thanks Mike

I’ll look at it again. It was definitely on healthy live bark.

Juliet

Struth! In nitric acid overnight to dissolve the crystals! OK, I’ll try it.

I’m so pleased that you think it looks good for L chlarotera s. str, though. Thanks.

Juliet

Thanks Maxine

I had gone through all the lichenicolous fungi listed in LGBI3, picture matching with photos available on the net (not very scientific, but it often works!) and came up with Nectriopsis physciicola too. However, then I read the fungi.myspecies description which says “Ascospores 14-18 (-22.5) x 5.5-8 µm (slightly wider in KOH), broadly ellipsoidal, the ends rounded, hyaline, smooth, with a single ± median septum.”

Given the consistently larger spore size – greater than 20 microns – I thought mine could well be something else.

Unless anyone has further thoughts I’ll record it as Nectriopsis physciicola but add a Record note that the spores were larger, with a reference to this post.

Brilliant, thanks ladies. I’m sure you’re right about it being a Psammina. I had, of course, binned the slide, and have just spent the last hour fruitlessly cutting at the specimen to try to find more.

I cannot see any septation in my photos. I followed the key as you suggested, Maxine, which got me fairly securely to Psammina simplex, though I really wish I had more material to recheck. Put it down to experience.

“mouse” soralia? Should that be “coarse”? Blooming spell-checkers!

Juliet

I secured a tiny specimen and looked at the papers you recommended, Mike. (The Booth one on Ascofrance downloaded without warning or complaint, thank goodness.)

It answers well enough to Neonectria ilicis, though the spores are rarely larger than 17x7um and I didn’t observe any browning of the most mature spores. Also, it was growing on a lovely big strong grey-shiny branch (though on a veteran holly) that didn’t look sick at all. I’ll have to keep an eye on it as well as looking for further examples.

I’ll iRecord it as Neonectria ilicis, referencing this forum.

Paul Cannon says it would probably have had more views if I had put it in the Ascomycetes area. Should it be moved?

Herewith some more photos, and thanks for all your help.

Juliet

To explain in simple terms what I think the chlorophyll fluorescence wikipedia page is saying, chlorophyll is fluorescent when it can’t quickly pass the energy along to the rest of the plant. It is a way of getting rid of surplus energy. It might be because it is already at normal capacity for that plant, or because the plant is stressed. Maybe fresh Melanohalea elegantula is always UV+ blood red, or might mine have been stressed because it was extremely wet when collected, or that a previously shaded branch was now on the ground in full sunlight. But all the lichens on the branch would have been in the same situation and though others were UV+ve when they shouldn’t have been, this was by far the most intriguingly “wrong” colour.

I have retained four specimens of M elegantula from that branch, collected on 29 December 2023. Of these, two had almost lost their red fluorescence on 31 December and two still showed good fluorescence. Today, 2 January 2024, one of the specimens that was fluorescent two days ago is now barely fluorescent, the other still shows red fluorescence, but not strikingly so. I’ll rewet them all at some point and see what happens.

How useful is UV as a field tool for identification, I wonder. Is it only red fluorescence I need to be wary of?

Happy New Year

Juliet