Polish Botanical Journal 52(1): 71–79, 2007 LECANORA SEMIPALLIDA, THE CORRECT NAME FOR L. XANTHOSTOMA, AND A REAPPRAISAL OF L. FLOTOVIANA (LECANORACEAE, ASCOMYCOTINA) LUCYNA ŚLIWA Abstract. The identity of two species of Lecanora is discussed in accordance with a taxonomic revision of the L. dispersa group in North America. Original material of L. fl otoviana Spreng., recently discovered at GOET, differs in morphology and chemical content from the entity currently known by that name, and does not belong to the L. dispersa group but is a little-understood species. Consequently, L. fl otoviana is excluded from the group, and L. semipallida H. Magn. is shown to be the correct name for the common, widespread member of the L. dispersa group hitherto known as L. fl otoviana (auct. non Spreng.). Lecanora xanthostoma Cl. Roux is considered to be conspecifi c with L. semipallida and is therefore reduced to synonymy. Key words: Lecanora dispersa group, L. flotoviana, L. semipallida, L. xanthostoma, lectotypification, nomenclature, synonymy Lucyna Śliwa, Laboratory of Lichenology, W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences, Lubicz 46, PL-31-512 Kraków, Poland; [email protected] INTRODUCTION The Lecanora dispersa group is characterized by names within the group are based on European an endolithic or endophloeic, rarely superfi cial collections, it was necessary, in most cases, for thallus, small apothecia with mostly white thalline material from both continents to be compared. Par- margins, and either with xanthones or else lacking ticular effort was made to trace available original any secondary metabolites. The fi rst attempt to- collections, with the result that many interesting wards a modern taxonomy of the group was that discoveries were made. The most signifi cant was of Poelt et al. (1995) who treated the species of the a reappraisal of the taxonomic status of two im- eastern Alps. These authors recognized a number portant but so far poorly understood members of of species based on combinations of anatomical the L. dispersa group: those known as L. fl oto- and chemical characters. Fröberg (1997) studied viana and L. xanthostoma. As a consequence, the the species of south Sweden and recently Laundon following taxonomic and nomenclatural changes (2003) dealt with a single species of the group: are proposed. L. zosterae (Ach.) Nyl. Our understanding of the complex remains incomplete, particularly outside THE IDENTITY OF L. FLOTOVIANA Europe. In 2001–2002, research by the author was con- Lecanora fl otoviana was described by Sprengel ducted on North American collections of the group in 1820 based on a Flotow collection reported in in an effort to identify the taxa of these lichens the original text as occurring on the bank of the on that continent. During the course of this study, Unstrut river (Germany). Subsequently, it was re- it became clear that a thorough examination of ported from other parts of Europe by, for example, the taxonomy and nomenclature of all representa- Körber (1855), Arnold (1868), Lojka (1869), Re- tives was necessary. Since the majority of available hman (1879), and Jatta (1882). It then remained 72 POLISH BOTANICAL JOURNAL 52(1). 2007 neglected for several decades until the taxon was resurrected by Poelt et al. (1995) and assigned to the L. dispersa group. This approach was followed by Fröberg (1997), and subsequently L. fl otoviana became recognized by other lichenologists and was again included in local fl oras and checklists, for example, John (1996), Diederich and Séru- siaux (2000), Hafellner and Türk (2001), Llimona and Hladun (2001), Øvstedal and Smith (2001), Fig. 1. Original description of Lecanora fl otoviana (Sprengel Coppins (2002), Bielczyk (2003), Nimis and Mar- 1820: 221). tellos (2003), Clerc (2004), Aptroot et al. (2004), Santesson et al. (2004), Lisická (2005). How- for neotypifi cation of the name. Specifi cations of ever, both Poelt et al. (1995) and Fröberg (1997) the unpublished neotype selected in 2002 are Ra- pointed out some problems with the taxonomy benhorst, Lich. Eur., No. 747, L. fl otowiana (FH) of L. fl otoviana, and these, along with an unclear with duplicates in M and WIS. On the basis of the species delimitation as well as certain divergences above species concept, L. fl otoviana was reported in the species concept between the two treatments, in the two papers by Palka and Śliwa (2004) and caused some further confusion. Consequently, de- Ryan et al. (2004). However, on account of the spite the progress made with the understanding most recent discoveries presented below, the name of the taxon called L. fl otoviana, the usage of the L. fl otoviana is reassigned to a different taxon. name remained ambiguous. Before making an offi cial typifi cation of L. fl o- As part of the research conducted on the L. dis- toviana in 2004, I made one more effort to trace persa complex in North America in the years the original material, concentrating on herbaria 2001–2002, I attempted to examine all original supposedly holding Sprengel and/or Flotow col- collections available. The earliest collected ma- lections: that is, B, BP, G, GOET, H, HAL, L and terial of L. fl otoviana that I was able to trace at M. Thanks to that some very interesting specimens that time were in exsiccata by Rabenhorst (1865) of L. fl otoviana were recovered. The GOET collec- – Lichenes Europaei, No. 747, L. fl otowiana, and tion of the species was most promising since, ac- Körber (1868) – Lich. Select. German., No. 338, cording to Index Collectorum (http://www.sysbot. L. fl otoviana. Despite having an inconspicuous uni-goettingen.de/index_coll/Search_F.htm), the thallus, the morphology of apothecial margins of herbarium was supposed to house Flotow’s lichens. the specimens corresponded very well with the One of the herbarium specimens is marked ‘Ex- description included in the protologue ‘margine emplar von Sprengel’ and has been annotated ‘Le- tumido crenulato thallode.’ (Fig. 1). The presence canora fl otoviana rev. Sprengel’. The material is of a xanthone (vinetorin) detected in the exsic- scanty but the fact that it is parasitic on Phaeophy- catae by T.L.C. was assumed to be a reasonable scia sciastra (Ach.) Moberg is signifi cant since the explanation for the colour of the species noted in protologue gives as locality indication: ‘Habitat in the protologue ‘disco pallido viridescente.’ The Parmelia melanimone parasitica’, and ‘Parmelia above observations of the specimens seemed to melanimone’ coincides with Phaeophyscia sciastra conform with Sprengel’s concept of the taxon, fairly well. Additionally, the specimen is anno- and I accepted them for further reference. The tated, perhaps by Arnold, as ‘Original Mat. Lecan. L. fl otoviana exsiccata of Rabenhorst and Körber fl ot.’. On the fragmented annotation label there is vary in the species habitat; Rabenhorst’s mate- also the remark ‘adest: melanimon Spr.’ and refer- rial is calcicolous, whereas Körber’s specimens ence ‘Beitr.: Flot. fl ora, 1828: 728’ (Fig. 2). The are corticolous. Since L. fl otoviana was originally mounted label indicated that the locality was given described as a saxicolous lichen (Sprengel 1820), as ‘Halle’ (noted in lower right corner of the label I chose the Rabenhorst collection as a candidate as is the case of other historical labels of GOET). L. ŚLIWA: LECANORA SEMIPALLIDA AND L. FLOTOVIANA 73 lichens are held. Although the pre-1943 lichen herbarium of B is known to have been destroyed by fire, it appears that a few specimens sur- vived. Among these are a considerable number of Lecanora, including seven specimens named ‘L. Flotoviana Spr.’. The only further indication of locality on the specimens is ‘Nebra’. However, the river Unstrut passes through the town of Nebra, which suggests that the L. fl otoviana specimens in B were collected at the locus classicus, perhaps by Sprengel. The B collection is recommended as excellent reference material as it contains more abundant material than the GOET specimen and there are duplicates available for comparison (Fig. 4). An additional specimen collected from Fig. 2. The original collection of Lecanora fl otoviana Spreng. Nebra was located at L, but this is by an unknown from GOET herbarium. Scale bar = 1 cm. collector. A comparison of the collections of L. fl otoviana This seems to contradict the locality directions in located at B, GOET and L with the species descrip- the protologue: ‘ad ripas fl uminis Unstrut’ (the tion by Sprengel (1820) showed they resemble river Unstrut does not fl ow through the city of the description fairly well, in particular regarding Halle and does not approach it closer than about the thallus structure described in the protologue: 30 km) but also does not disqualify the specimen ‘L. crusta glebulosa candida, glebulis dispersis as original material, since Halle may be a gener- inciso – crenatis subgranulatis.’ In fact, the thallus alized description of the locality specifi ed in the is not typical of the dispersa group and suggests protologue (general term for an area that includes quite a different placement for the species. Further- ‘the bank of the Unstrut river’). This particular more, the results of my chemical analysis of the specimen is most likely Flotow’s original collec- lichen thalli and apothecia were very surprising as tion and therefore I have chosen it as lectotype of the material produces usnic and ± psoromic acids. the name (Fig. 3). The occurrence of such lichen compounds in L. fl o- The richest historical collection of L. fl otoviana toviana leads to the conclusion that it should be is, however, located in Berlin, where Sprengel’s excluded from the L. dispersa group. A detailed description of L. fl otoviana in view of its newly defi ned relationship is presented below. The cor- rect application of the name to currently known Lecanora species is a matter for future debate and investigations since such research is beyond the scope of this study. Lecanora fl otoviana Spreng. Neue Entd. 1: 221. 1820. – LECTOTYPE (designated here): [Germany] ‘Halle’ [on sandstone, parasitic on Phaeophyscia sciastra] (GOET!) REMARKS. ‘Flotoviana’ is the original spelling and it is to be preserved according to Art. 60.7 of Fig. 3. The lectotype of Lecanora fl otoviana Spreng. (GOET). Scale bar = 1 mm. the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 74 POLISH BOTANICAL JOURNAL 52(1). 2007 a b Fig. 4. The collection of Lecanora fl otoviana Spreng. from B herbarium: a – B 60 0025699; b – B 60 0025705. Scale bars = 1 mm. which applies in this particular case. In fact, such distinct; epithecium brown, granular (bright in Latinization of the Flotow name in the species polarized light), granules mostly superficial, epithet was deliberately chosen: in the protologue coarse, mostly soluble in K and insoluble in N, the author used the name ‘Lecanora Flotoviana’, usually with an epipsamma (insoluble in K and while further in the same text is the writing ‘ad soluble in N); hymenium hyaline, 50–80 μm high; ripas fl uminis Unstrut. Flotow.’ (Fig. 1; see also subhymenium indistinct; hypothecium distinctly Laundon 2003; Ryan et al. 2004). yellow, composed of prosoplectenchyma, clear, without granules, 100–120 μm thick. Paraphyses Thallus superficial, clearly visible, thick, simple, slender, not expanded, or slightly ex- ± compact (forming a continuous crust) or loose; panded at top, not pigmented, free in K. Asci areoles 0.3–1.7 mm wide, granular-like or forming clavate, 8-spored; ascospores hyaline, simple, el- fl attened rosettes with crenulated margins; white lipsoid, 12.0–15.5(–17.0) × 5.0–7.5 μm. Pycnidia or cream-colored; surface slightly rough to gran- not observed. ular. Apothecia usually on the areoles of thallus, rarely directly on the rock surface, occurring CHEMISTRY. Thallus and apothecial margin K+ singly or clustered in groups, sessile, fl at when yellowish, C–, KC–, P+ yellow or P–; disc K–, mature or fl exuose, 0.6–1.3 mm wide; disc pale C–, P–; apothecia UV–. Lichen products: usnic and brown to brown or blackish (often with parasitic ± psoromic acids and ± unknown pigment detected fungus), epruinose, or slightly to considerably by TLC. pruinose, smooth; thalline exciple prominent, SUBSTRATE AND ECOLOGY. Directly on cal- rough, uniform, pruinose, even or crenulate, careous rocks (lime-rich sandstone, limestone) or the same colour as thallus and paler than the overgrowing other lichens, for example Physcia disc, without a parathecial ring. Amphithecium caesia (Hoffm.) Fürnr. and Phaeophyscia sciastra 120–190 μm thick, corticate, with gelatinous hy- (Ach.) Moberg. phae and algae fi lling the area below the cortex; cortex usually not distinctly delimited, uniform, GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. From the label or slightly thicker at the base than at the sides, information of the studied specimens, the species 20–30 μm thick laterally and 30–40 μm thick was perhaps scattered in Germany in the 19th cen- at base, gelatinous, obscured by granules inter- tury; further investigations are necessary to assess fering into algae layer (bright in polarized light, the current frequency and geographical range of insoluble in K, ± soluble in N); parathecium in- the taxon. L. ŚLIWA: LECANORA SEMIPALLIDA AND L. FLOTOVIANA 75 SPECIMENS SEEN. GERMANY. Nebra, [on sand- tunately the name L. xanthostoma was considered stone], s.d., [Sprengel?] s.n. (B 60 0025699 – partly as invalidly published in the treatment of Poelt overgroving Phaeophyscia sciastra and Physcia caesia et al. (1995), and thus Fröberg (1997) unneces- (Hoffm.) Fürnr., with parasitic fungus, B 60 0025700, sarily provided a brief diagnosis and selected the B 60 0025701 – with parasitic fungus, B 60 0025702, holotype (Sweden, Gotland, Öja, 1845, C. Sten- B 60 0025703 – associated with Protoparmeliopsis hammar, LD!). For that reason Fröberg (1997: 33) muralis M. Choisy, B 60 0025704 – with parasitic is commonly but incorrectly given as the author fungus, B 60 0025705); Dietenhofen, 1855, Rehm s.n. (L 0367184); ‘Gott’ [Göttingen?], [on sandstone], s.d., of the name. s.coll. s.n. (GOET); Nebra, [on sandstone, associated Recently, L. xanthostoma has received more with Protoparmeliopsis muralis, with parasitic fungus], attention and is reported in several fl oras and 1819, s.coll. s.n. (L 0367198). Additional specimens checklists, for example Hafellner and Türk (2001), seen with no locality provided: [on limestone], 1846, Llimona and Hladun (2001), Coppins (2002), Philipp s.n. (GOET); [on sandstone], s.d., Schaerer s.n. Nimis and Martellos (2003), Aptroot et al. (2004), (GOET). Note: all specimens were originally labeled as Santesson et al. (2004), Lisická (2005). L. fl otov(/w)iana. However, it seemed to me very unlikely that this distinctive and apparently frequent species THE IDENTITY OF L. SEMIPALLIDA was not previously described. Therefore, I checked a considerable number of Lecanora names of un- The reassignment of the name L. flotoviana known taxonomic placement, studied their diag- given above leaves one of the most distinctive nosis for any indication they may belong to the and common representatives of the L. dispersa L. dispersa group, and fi nally examined the type group, represented by the previously discussed collections. This has revealed that L. xanthostoma exsiccata collection of L. fl otoviana by Rabenhorst is conspecifi c with L. semipallida, which was de- and Körber, without a name. The most appropriate scribed by Magnusson from Asia in 1940, and thus choice seemed to be L. xanthostoma since its char- has priority. Hitherto, L. semipallida was poorly acteristics (Roux 1976; Poelt et al. 1995; Fröberg known, being represented only by the type collec- 1997) correspond very well with the species to tion and reported only locally (Golubkova 1981; which the above-mentioned specimens belong. Baibulatova 1988). Lecanora xanthostoma was recognized and The taxonomic conclusion is thus summarized named by Weddell, and described by Roux (1976) as follows: who provided an unambiguous and precise circum- scription of the species and a bilingual diagnosis Lecanora semipallida H. Magn. (Latin and Esperanto). When describing the spe- Lichens from Central Asia I, in S. Hedin (ed.), Reports cies, Roux (1976) referred to the Weddell collec- Scientifi c Exped. North-west. provinces of China (the tion in Paris: ‘L. xanthostoma Wedd. nom. nudum Sino-Swedish expedition). 13, XI. Botany, 1. Aktiebo- in Herb. WEDDEL (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle laget, Thule & Stockholm: 89. 1940. – HOLOTYPE: de Paris)’, and provided the locality ‘Poitiers’ in ‘China occidentalis: prov. Kansu. Wai-chüan-ku, E of the text of the paper. Roux (1976: 24) validly pub- Yeh-ma-ta-chüan, ca 3000 m.s.m., 13.12.1931, Birger lished the name L. xanthostoma and is the correct Bohlin 42d’ (S!). author of the species epithet. It is worth mentioning = L. xanthostoma Wedd. ex Cl. Roux, Bull. Mus. Hist. there was no requirement until 1990 to include Nat. Marseille 36: 24. 1976. – HOLOTYPE: [France] one of the words ‘typus’ or ‘holotypus’, or its ab- ‘Poitiers’ [parasitic on Verrucaria nigrescens Pers.], breviation, or its equivalent in a modern language, Weddell (PC). or even to specify the single herbarium or collec- = L. xanthostoma Cl. Roux ex Fröberg, Symb. Bot. Ups. tion or institution in which the type is preserved; 32(1): 33. 1997; nom. illeg. (Art. 53.1). it was only necessary to indicate a type and this = L. fl otoviana auct. (non Spreng.). For an overview requirement was executed by Roux (1976). Unfor- of the taxon see Ryan et al. 2004: 218. Widely distrib- 76 POLISH BOTANICAL JOURNAL 52(1). 2007 uted reference collection: Rabenhorst, Lich. Eur. 747, CHEMISTRY. Apothecial margin K+ yellow, L. fl otowiana (for saxicolous specimens) and Körber, C– or C+ yellow, KC+ yellow, P–; disc K+ yellow Lich. Select. German. 338, L. fl otoviana (for corticolous or orange, C+ yellow or orange, P–; apothecia specimens). UV+ yellow-orange. Lichen products: vinetorin Thallus within substrate, not visible, or crus- (5-chloro-3-O-methylnorlichexanthone) detected tose, indistinct to clearly visible, thin, margin in- by TLC. distinct, mostly continuous, ± smooth or rimose, SUBSTRATE AND ECOLOGY. Directly on cal- pale gray, or yellowish gray to greenish gray, careous rocks (limestone, lime-rich sandstone) often with distinct bluish pigment. Apothecia and concrete or overgrowing or commensally on occurring singly, or clustered in groups, sessile, other lichens, e.g. Aspicilia calcarea (L.) Mudd, or constricted at base to almost raised, fl at when Caloplaca spp., Lecanora spp., Physcia spp., mature or fl exuose, 0.4–1.3 mm wide; disc shades Phaeophyscia nigricans (Flörke) Moberg, Verru- of yellow, pale greenish yellow, or yellow-orange caria spp.; occasionally on bark, mosses and plant to pale brown, epruinose, or slightly pruinose, debris, also on metal. smooth; thalline exciple prominent, smooth or rough, uniform, epruinose or pruinose, even or GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. It is probably distinctly crenulate, paler than thallus and paler a cosmopolitan species; in the course of the revi- than disc, often with bluish pigment, without a par- sion of the L. dispersa group in North America, athecial ring. Amphithecium 70–170(–270) μm L. semipallida was studied from many regions thick, corticate, with gelatinous hyphae and algae (Śliwa 2007). Here I present the synopsis of ex- fi lling the area below the cortex; cortex usually amined collections to indicate the species range: distinctly delimited, rarely not distinctly delimited, Australia (FH), Austria (ASU, GZU, KRAM), Bel- uniform, or slightly thicker at base than at sides, gium (FH), Bulgaria (KRAM), Canada (CANL, 30–50 μm thick laterally and 50–70 μm thick at COLO, MICH, MIN, US, WIS), Czech Republic base, hyphal, obscured by granules occasionally in- (NY, US), Denmark (KRAM), Germany (ASU, terfering into algae layer (bright in polarized light, GOET, L, M), Hungary (FH, KRAM, WIS), Italy insoluble in K, soluble in N); parathecium usually (MSC), Mongolia (KRAM, LE), New Zealand distinct, prosoplectenchymatous, 10–30 μm wide; (ASU, MSC: Campbell Island), Norway (GOET, epithecium hyaline or shades of yellow or brown, NY), Poland (KRAM), Russia (WIS), Sweden granular (bright in polarized light), granules super- (FH, L, LD, MIN, NY, WIS), Switzerland (GOET, fi cial and between paraphyses tips, fi ne to coarse, NY), Ukraine (KRAM), United Kingdom (H, soluble in K and insoluble in N, sometimes with MSC, NY), U.S.A. (ASU, CANL, COLO, FH, an epipsamma (insoluble in K, soluble in N); hy- H, KRAM, NY, MICH, MIN, MSC, OMA, OSC, menium hyaline, 50–90 μm high; subhymenium US, WIS; H, MSC, US, WIS: Alaska). indistinct; hypothecium hyaline or distinctly In 2002 during revision of the herbarium mate- yellow to orange (becoming more intense in K), rial I labelled all these specimens as ‘L. fl otowiana composed of prosoplectenchyma, clear, without Spreng.’, which is now equivalent to L. fl otoviana granules, confl uent with proper margin and similar auct. non Spreng. in colour, 50–160 μm thick. Paraphyses simple or dichotomously branched at tips, slender or thick- COMMENTS. Lecanora semipallida is one of ened, not expanded, or slightly expanded at tips, the more distinct species of the L. dispersa group. usually not pigmented, free in K. Asci clavate, A key character distinguishing the species is the 4–8-spored; ascospores hyaline, simple, broadly presence of epithecial granules that are soluble in ellipsoid, (8.5–)9.0–12.0(–13.0) × 4.5–6.0(–7.5) K. The presence of vinetorin, resulting in positive μm. Pycnidia rare, black, inconspicuous; conidia spot tests and UV reaction of apothecial discs, is elongate, fi liform, usually curved, 10–17(–18) μm also diagnostic. Especially interesting was the dis- long. covery of the presence of elongate, curved conidia L. ŚLIWA: LECANORA SEMIPALLIDA AND L. FLOTOVIANA 77 in several specimens of L. semipallida, because 338 (as L. fl otoviana, lignicolous) (GOET, L, M); Lich. pycnidia have not been previously reported for Danici Exsicc. 276 (as L. cf. xanthostoma) (KRAM); any member of the L. dispersa group even though Malme, Lich. Suecici Exsicc. 544 (as L. dispersa) (MIN, WIS); Rabenhorst, Lich. Eur. 747 (as L. fl otowiana) they had been illustrated from the specimen from (FH, GOET, L, M, WIS); Verseghy, Lich. Exsicc. 61 (as Rabenhorst’s exsiccata (Lich. Eur. 747) held at the L. dispersa) (KRAM); Wartmann & Schenk, Schweiz. herbarium in Munich. Kryptog. 469 (as L. caesio-alba) (MIN). Lecanora semipallida is now one of the most widely distributed saxicolous species of the SELECTED HISTORICAL SPECIMENS SEEN. GER- MANY. Algau, [illegible]...burg, s.d., Rehm s.n. group, apart from L. dispersa (Pers.) Sommerf. (L 0367195); Algau Oberbayerns, s.d., s.coll. s.str., from which it differs both anatomically and (L 0367190); am Blauen Berg, [18]58, Graf Solms chemically. Lecanora dispersa is currently rec- s.n. (GOET), Prope Büren in Guestfalia, [corticolous], ognized as having epithecial granules that often s.d., Lahm s.n. (L 0367191); Büren, s.d., Lahm s.n. extend into part or all of the hymenium and that (L 0367185); ‘Gott’ [Göttingen?], s.d., s.coll. (GOET); are K- insoluble. The presence of pannarin in L. dis- Kirchhof-Nexeralmoden, 1955, Lampe s.n. (GOET); persa is also detectable in most specimens (P+ Lahberg bei Bad Gadershein, 1955, Lampe s.n. orange, detectable especially on the inner side of (GOET); Neuhof bei Hildesheim, 1955, Lampe s.n. the apothecial margins) (Śliwa 2006, 2007). It is (GOET); Pfarrgarten in Kückenberg, s.d., Kemler s.n. (L 0367193); Salzgitter-Band, Hamberg, 1955, worthy of note that L. semipallida is very richly Lampe s.n. (GOET); Südharzrand, o. Osterhagen, represented in most of the herbaria contacted. The Römerstein, 1955, Lampe s.n. (GOET); Weddingen, species seems obviously over-collected in com- 1955, Lampe s.n. (GOET); Ziegenberg, 1955, Lampe parison with L. dispersa. This is perhaps because s.n. (GOET). MONGOLIA. Gobi Altai, northern slope L. semipallida draws more attention in the fi eld of the Ikhe-Nomgon-Ula range, alt. 1850 m, [para- with its larger apothecia with prominent, thick sitic on Aspicilia sp.], 25 July 1970, Golubkova 892 thalline margins. For someone not familiar with (LE). NORWAY. s.loc., 1842, Grisebach s.n. (GOET). the species it could be mistaken for well devel- SWEDEN. Gotland, Torsburgen, 1874, Elmqvist s.n. oped representatives of L. dispersa. Therefore, (LD); O eland and Gotland, s.d., s.coll. (L 0367200). SWITZERLAND. s.loc., s.d., s.coll. (GOET). Addi- even if the two species co-occur L. semipallida tional specimens seen with no locality provided at all: is much more likely to be collected than L. dis- 1955, Klement s.n. (GOET); s.d., s.coll., s.n. (GOET); persa itself. s.d., s.coll., s.n. (GOET). Note: originally the speci- In morphology, Lecanora semipallida is a very mens were labeled mostly as L. fl otov(/w)iana but also variable species. The size and shape of apothecia as L. albescens, L. crenulata and L. dispersa. as well as their colouration differ signifi cantly. It is, however, consistent regarding anatomy (properties CONCLUSIONS of epithecial granules) and chemistry (vinetorin always present). A closely related species is L. in- It is important to mention here that other authors vadens H. Magn., described by the same author had often regarded Lecanora fl otoviana auct. and at the same time and also from Asia (Magnusson L. xanthostoma Cl. Roux as two different species. 1940: 87). This species differs in having a more During my studies of a large collection by various distinct thallus as compared to L. semipallida, authors, the name L. fl otoviana has been found to dark brown to blackish, heavily pruinose apoth- have been applied to a range of different species, ecial discs and a blue-green epithecium. Its close notably L. xanthostoma (indistinctly yellowish relation to L. semipallida is indicated by sparse morphotypes with brownish apothecial discs) and but K soluble granules in the epithecium and the L. dispersa (Pers.) Sommerf. (individuals with presence of vinetorin (Śliwa 2007). large, crowded, fl exuose apothecia and brownish apothecial discs). This implies that any renaming EXSICCATES SEEN. Arnold, Lich. Monac. Exsicc. 206 (as L. dispersa) (M); Flora Hung. Exsicc. 812 (as L. dis- of specimens should be made only after their persa) (FH, KRAM, WIS); Körber, Lich. Select. German. thorough and critical re-determination. Detailed 78 POLISH BOTANICAL JOURNAL 52(1). 2007 characteristics of all species of the L. dispersa CLERC P. 2004. Les champignons lichénisés de Suisse. Cata- complex as well as a key to their identifi cation are logue bibliographique complete par des données sur la distribution et l’écologie des espéces. Cryptog. Helv. 19: being published separately (Śliwa 2007). 5–314. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The most sincere thanks are COPPINS B. J. 2002. Checklist of Lichens of Great Britain and due to Clifford Wetmore (St. Paul, Minnesota) for en- Ireland. British Lichen Society, London. couragement and invaluable support during the study, DIEDERICH P. & SÉRUSIAUX E. 2000. The Lichens and Li- as well as for offering working facilities and generous chenicolous Fungi of Belgium and Luxembourg. An An- hospitality. I am deeply indebted to the curators and notated Checklist. Musée National d’Histoire Naturelle, directors of the herbaria cited in this article for the loan Luxembourg. of specimens. I am especially grateful to Orvo Vitikainen FRÖBERG L. 1997. Variation in the Lecanora dispersa group in (Helsinki), Harrie J. M. Sipman (Berlin), Hannes Hertel South Sweden. Symb. Bot. Upsal. 32(1): 29–34. (München), Jochen Heinrichs and Toby Spribille (Göt- GOLUBKOVA N. S. 1981. Konspekt fl ory lishaynikov Mon- tingen), Pieter Baas and Gerard Thijsse (Leiden) as well golskoy Narodnoy Respubliki. Biol. Resursy Prir. Uslov. as to Philippe Clerc (Genéve) and Laszlo Lőkös (Bu- Mongolsk. Nar. Resp. 16: 1–201. dapest) for help in searching the herbaria for original HAFELLNER J. & TÜRK R. 2001. Die lichenisierten Pilze Öster- collections, and for kindly allowing me to study his- reichs – eine Checkliste der bisher nachgewiesenen Arten torical materials. I would like to thank Irwin M. Brodo mit Verbreitungsangaben. Stapfi a 76: 3–173. (Ottawa) for encouragement, valuable comments and JATTA A. 1882. Lichenum Italiae meridionalis manipulus fruitful discussions offered to me during his visit to the quartus, quem collegit et ordinavit A. Jatta. Nuovo Giorn. Minnesota lichen laboratory. I thank Alan Fryday (East Bot. Ital. 14: 107–143. Lansing, Michigan) for improving the paper’s English JOHN V. 1996. Preliminary catalogue of lichenized and li- and Wojciech Paul (Kraków) for assistance with Latin chenicolous fungi of Mediterranean Turkey. Bocconea 6: and German Gothic label texts. I appreciate also helpful 173–216. co-operation of my colleagues Karina Wilk (Kraków) and Martin Kukwa (Gdańsk). Two anonymous reviewers KÖRBER G. W. 1855. Systema Lichenum Germaniae. Verlag von Trewendt & Granier, Breslau. and John McNeill (Edinburgh) are acknowledged for their critical comments and corrections on the manu- KÖRBER G. W. 1868. Lichenes Selecti Germanici. Fasc. XI– script. Financial support by Clifford Wetmore’s labora- XII, nr. 301–360. Breslau. tory and the Plant Biology Department of the University LAUNDON J. R. 2003. The status of Lecanora zosterae in the of Minnesota (U.S.A.) throughout the academic year British Isles. Lichenologist 35(2): 97–102. 2001/2002 made this study possible and is gratefully ac- LISICKÁ E. 2005. The lichens of the Tatry Mountains. VEDA, knowledged. The work was also supported by Polish na- Bratislava. tional funds for scientifi c research in 2004–2005 (MNiI, LLIMONA X. & HLADUN N. L. 2001. Checklist of the lichens grant no. 2P04G 08726) and 2007–2009 (MNiSW, grant and lichenicolous fungi of the Iberian Peninsula and Bal- no. N304 05032/2318). earic Islands. Bocconea 14: 5–581. LOJKA H. 1869. Bericht über eine lichenologische Reise in das REFERENCES nördliche Ungarn, unternommen im Sommer 1868. Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 19: 481–500. APTROOT A., VAN HERK C. M., SPARRIUS L. B. & SPIER J. L. MAGNUSSON H. 1940. Lichens from Central Asia I. In: S. HEDIN 2004. Checklist van de Nederlandse korstmossen en korst- (ed.), Reports Scientifi c Exped. North-west. provinces of mosparasieten. Buxbaumiella 69: 17–55. China (the Sino-Swedish expedition). 13, XI. Botany, 1: 1–168. Aktiebolaget, Thule & Stockholm. ARNOLD F. 1868. Lichenologische Ausfl üge in Tirol. Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 18: 947–960. NIMIS P. L. & MARTELLOS S. 2003. A Second Checklist of the Lichens of Italy with a Thesaurus of Synonyms. BAIBULATOVA N. E. 1988. Lishajniki bassejna reki Sary-Dzhaz Monografi e 4. Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali Saint- (Central’nyj Tyan’-Szan’). Bot. Zhurn. 73(3): 349–354. Pierre – Valle d’Aosta, Aosta. BIELCZYK U. 2003. The lichens and allied fungi of the Polish ØVSTEDAL D. O. & SMITH R. I. L. 2001. Lichens of Antarctica Western Carpathians. In: U. BIELCZYK (ed.), The Lichens and South Georgia. A Guide to their Identifi cation and and Allied Fungi of the Polish Carpathians – an Anno- Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. tated Checklist, pp. 23–232. Biodiversity of the Polish Car- pathians 1. W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy PALKA K. & ŚLIWA L. 2004. Lichen species new to Mongolia. of Sciences, Kraków. Polish Bot. J. 49(1): 35–43. L. ŚLIWA: LECANORA SEMIPALLIDA AND L. FLOTOVIANA 79 POELT J., LEUCKERT C. & ROUX C. 1995. Die Arten der Le- RYAN B. D., LUMBSCH H. T., MESSUTI M. I., PRINTZEN C., canora dispersa-Gruppe (Lichenes, Lecanoraceae) auf ŚLIWA L. & NASH III T. H. 2004. Lecanora Ach. In: kalkreichen Gesteinen im Bereich der Ostalpen – eine T. H. NASH III, B. D. RYAN, P. DIEDERICH, C. GRIES Vorstudie. Biblioth. Lichenol. 58: 289–333. & F. BUNGARTZ (eds), Lichen Flora of the Greater Sonoran Desert Region. 2: 176–286. Lichens Unlimited, Arizona RABENHORST G. L. 1865. Lichenes Europaei Exsiccati. State University, Tempe, Arizona. Die Flechten Europa’s unter Mitwirkung mehrer nahm- hafter Botaniker, gesammelt und herausgegeben von SANTESSON R., MOBERG R., NORDIN A., TØNSBERG T. & VI- Dr. L. Rabenhorst. Fasc. XXVII, nr. 726–750. Hein- TIKAINEN O. 2004. Lichen-forming and lichenicolous rich, Dresden. fungi of Fennoscandia. Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Uppsala. REHMAN A. 1879. Systematyczny przegląd porostów znalezio- nych dotąd w Galicyi zachodniej, opracowany na pod- SPRENGEL K. 1820. Neue Entdeckungen im ganzen Umfang der stawie własnych i cudzych spostrzeżeń. Spraw. Komis. Pfl anzenkunde. 1: 213–232. F. Fleischer, Leipzig. Fizjogr. 13(2): 1–66. ŚLIWA L. 2006. The typifi cation of Lecanora dispersa and L. albescens. Mycotaxon 97: 291–297. ROUX C. 1976. Champignons lichénisés ou lichénicoles intéres- sants pour la fl ore Française Méridionale. Bull. Mus. Hist. ŚLIWA L. 2007. A revision of the Lecanora dispersa complex Nat. (Marseilles) 36: 19–27. in North America. Polish Bot. J. 52(1): 1–70. Received 15 June 2007