Lecanoropsis M. Choisy ex Ivanovich, 2025
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.695.1.1 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039387EF-FFA8-C17E-338B-F964FA70FAEF |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Lecanoropsis M. Choisy ex Ivanovich |
| status |
gen. nov. |
Lecanoropsis M. Choisy ex Ivanovich View in CoL View at ENA , gen. nov.
= Lecanoropsis M. Choisy nom. inval. (See Notes below in p. 14)
Type: Lecanora saligna (Schrad.) Zahlbruckner (1928: 536)
MycoBank nº: 847126
Thallus mainly endosubstratal, rarely episubstratal and amorphous, effuse, more rarely developed into a smooth to warty, esorediate thallus ( Lecanoropsis coracina , rarely L. quercicola ). Prothallus not apparent. Apothecia lecanorine, a few species (e.g. L. anopta , L. albellula ) with apparently biatorine apothecia. Amphithecium lecanorine, typically with a distinct cortex and an algal layer, algal layer normally between the external amphithecial cortex and the subhymenial layers. Sometimes amphithecium appears either laterally (e.g. L. albellula , L. subravida ) or completely ecorticate (e.g. L. crassithallina ), amphithecium commonly extending upwards enclosing the hymenium laterally (e.g. in L. subintricata , L. subravida ), rarely, amphithecium excluded or situated at the base of convex apothecia (e.g. in L. anopta , L. anoptizodes ). Often KOH-soluble granules present within both the cortex and algal layer (e.g. L. albellula , L. subintricata ); KOH-insoluble crystals (such as oxalate crystals, common to the Lecanora subfusca -group) absent. Amphithecial cortex hyaline or external parts pigmented (e.g. L. micans , L. subcinctula ), either uniform in width to gradually or greatly widened basally, weakly (e.g. L. albellula , Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 , B), moderately (e.g. L. coracina , Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 , B) or heavily gelatinized (e.g. L. subintricata , Fig. 11 View FIGURE 11 , B). Epihymenium yellowish or reddish brown to faint brown, or olive green to blackish, or hyaline, often containing Cinereorufa -green, Superba -brown or some unknown brown, red and yellow pigments. Often with an epipsamma composed of KOH-soluble, golden-brown granules that can obfuscate the epihymenium coloration. Hymenium usually hyaline, sometimes with pigmented streaks coming from the epihymenium, KOH-soluble golden-brown granules from the epihymenium sometimes streaking into hymenium. Golden brown sclerotized spores (“guttulae” sensu Hedlund, 1892) regularly present in L. anopta , L. anoptizodes and L. pseudosarcopidoides , as well as in part of the material of L. omissa , exceptionally also in individual specimens of other species (e.g. L. saligna ). Subhymenial layers hyaline, rarely faint brown ( L. albellula ), sometimes with KOHsoluble golden granules from the hymenium. Asci clavate, Lecanora - type, 8-spores per ascus. Spores ellipsoid, hyaline, simple.
Macroconidia (when present) curved, U-shaped, crescent-shaped or reniform, simple to 3-septate. Microconidia bacilliform, sometimes bent or curved. Mesoconidia ellipsoid to bacilliform. Leptoconidia long, filiform and curved.
Chemistry: C–, K–, P–, rarely K± yellow (observed only in some specimens of L. subravida and reported by van den Boom & Brand (2008) for L. subintricata ). Isousnic, usnic, pseudoplacodiolic and/or neousnic acids, more rarely atranorin, squamatic acid and zeorin ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 ). 7-O-methylnorascomatic acid and brialmontin 1 were reported for the group previously ( van den Boom & Brand 2008). The xanthone arthothelin is newly reported here for the group ( L. micans ).
Substrate: Corticolous and/or lignicolous ( Lecanora sarcopidoides var. hypnophaga Poelt (1957: 388) growing on moss).
Ecology: In biomes ranging from the Mediterranean basin, to mixed temperate, submontane to subalpine coniferous forests, ranging into subarctic forests. Usually occurring above 1000 m elevation, with some species preferring lower elevations down to sea level.
Distribution: Widely distributed in the Northern Hemisphere.
Notes: Lecanoropsis was described by Choisy (1949) in “Catalogue des lichens de la région Lyonnaise”, but his description was invalid because he only provided a diagnosis in French (Art. 39.1). The name was ignored for decades until it was mentioned by Hafellner (1984) and, more recently, taken up by Kondratyuk et al. (2019). Hafellner (1984) correctly stated that the genus was not validly described. Although he lectotypified it on Lecanoropsis saligna (Schrader) M. Choisy , he expressed doubt about its generic status, by writing: “The pycnidia of Lecanoropsis saligna must be reevaluated. If the pycnospores are significantly different from Lecanora s. str. in shape and size, the genus perhaps ought to be accepted” (translated from German). From that statement, it can be implied that Hafellner did not accept the generic status of Lecanoropsis at the time of his publication. Later, Kondratyuk et al. (2019) ignoring their own phylogenetic evidence and the fact that Lecanoropsis was invalid, combined Lecanora anopta Nylander (1873: 292) and Rhizoplaca macleanii (C.W. Dodge) Castello (2010: 430) into the genus. They also failed to mention any phenotypic characters that could be interpreted as a validating description of Lecanoropsis . Therefore, because no formal effort has yet been made to validate Lecanoropsis , and in light of our own phylogenetic reconstruction, the name is validated here. Furthermore, according to Art. 35.1 of the code ( Turland et al., 2018), all past combinations of Lecanoropsis are invalid, because the generic name was invalid at the time of their publication. These names are also validated here.
In his description, Choisy (1949) pointed out that Lecanoropsis “differs from the current genus Lecanora subgenus Eulecanora by the ovoid-oblong, straight or sometimes slightly curved pycnoconidia” (translated from French) and included the following four species: L. “sarcopisoides ” (A. Massal.) M. Choisy = Lecanora sarcopidoides (A. Massal.) Hedl., L. subintricata (Th. Fr.) M. Choisy = Lecanora subintricata (Nyl.) Th. Fr., L. saligna (Schrad.) M. Choisy = Lecanora saligna (Schrad.) Zahlbr. and L. sarcopis (Wahlenb.) M. Choisy , currently considered a synonym of Lecanora saligna (Schrad.) Zahlbr. Printzen (2001) saw no morphological reasons to segregate the saligna -group into a new genus. However, in his treatment of Lecanora from the Sonoran Desert Region, he did not pay adequate attention to the characteristic macroconidia, a unique phenotypic trait of Lecanoropsis . Our formal resurrection of Lecanoropsis is supported by molecular evidence in addition to these phenotypic traits. The monophyletic nature of the majority of the members of the saligna -group ( Figure 17 View FIGURE 17 , see also Ivanovich et al, 2021; Pérez-Ortega et al 2010; Zhao et al 2015) is an argument for a formal segregation of this “core” clade. Instead of selecting a new name we choose to resurrect the name Lecanoropsis for the genus, as it is the first published name for the members of the Lecanora saligna -group.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.