|
replaced with |
|
Lendemer, J. C. 2013. A monograph of the crustose members of the genus Lepraria Ach. s. str. (Stereocaulaceae, lichenized Ascomycetes) in North America north of Mexico. Opuscula Philolichenum 11: 27-141.
Lendemer (2013) states that the current broad concept of Lepraria lobificans is incorrect, and that at least for North America (and possibly the Pacific Basin - as they discuss Fiji) Lepraria the name is misapplied. In that area the Lepraria that had been referred to by the name L. lobificans they now refer to L. finkii. Lepraria finkii they note is best recognised by the placodioid thallus and production of atranorin, zeorin, and stictic acid . Lendemer (2013) notes that Lepraria finkii is best distinguished from L. lobificans s.s. by the presence of zeorin but he does not discuss L. lobificans further presumably because it is not in North America (i.e. there is no description of the species and it is not keyed out), and his taxonomic treatment of L. lobificans is given as a 'foot note' in which he synonymizes L. santosii (as a junior heterotypic synonym) into it .
The implication of this paper is that the current application of Lepraria lobificans in New Zealand - based on Galloway (2007) is probably incorrect. As no one is actively revising Lepraria here (in fact as confirmation of that statement, just yesterday I posted material of an unknown Lepraria to Berlin for identification - see https://inaturalist.nz/observations/4733512) for now at least I think the decision to merge New Zealand records of L. lobificans with L. finkii makes sense. However what I am not sure of is whether there are legitimate L. lobificans records on iNaturalist from elsewhere in the world, and if so, whether they would be affected by the merger.
Hope that helps.
Galloway, D.J. 2007. Flora of New Zealand Lichens. Revised Second Edition Including Lichen-Forming and Lichenicolous Fungi. Manaaki Whenua Press. Lincoln.
@pjd1, this seems like a potential species of conflict between North American and New Zealand lichen taxonomies: http://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz/default.aspx?selected=NameDetails&TabNum=0&NameId=4FECA318-B6F0-4417-B0FC-E889B5C5FCA4. I find Lendemer's wording a bit confusing. Is he synonymizing L. santosii, L. lobificans, and L. finkii all under the name L. finkii, or is he maintaining the name L. lobificans but using it to refer to what was formerly called L. santosii, and assigning what had been called L. lobificans to L. finkii? I guess my questions for you are 1) do you guys even recognize the findings of this paper, 2) which if these do you think he meant, and 3) which sense of L. lobificans are you guys using in NZ? If L. lobificans is still a valid name, I think we need to split it into L. lobificans sensu stricto (formerly L. santosii) and L. finkii, but I'm not sure where that would leave the observations from New Zealand.