I thought I'd introduce myself here and use the thread to ask questions if that's OK.

 

I have been amateur botanizing for about 12 years, primarily doing vascular plants and just starting on lichens. Toward that end I recently bought a copy of Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest and joined this group. I have been a contributing photographer at Burke online for 3 years and a volunteer Steward for DNR for the past year. (Just started collecting specimens for Burke this past summer.) Most of my stewarding has been at Lacamas Prairie NAP, but I sometimes make it out to several Washougal Oaks parcels as well.

 

Feel free to correct any misidentifications I post to the gallery, offer me tips, ask questions, and otherwise prod me along. Thanks for having me in the group!

 

Roger 

 

  

scot loring wrote:

Welcome to the group, Roger -- good to have you!

Thanks Scott. :)

 

Bruce,  I saw your Invitation to the Spring meeting in Wendy's thread, and while I would like to attend, the costs are beyond my means. Thanks though!

 

OK, now to lichen! So I just did my first ever spot tests and hopefully got the ID correct. I can't do the P test yet as I have to wait 'til next month to buy some  para-phenylenediamine and ethanol. (Hopefully Everclear will work?)

 

So I put 4 photos in the Gallery of what I believe is Hypogymnia canadensis. Spot test results were K+Y K+ slow reddish brown KC+O, and I included a photo of the K+ slow result. Please let me know how I did, and thanks.

scot loring wrote:

Good job on the spot test.  I have used everclear before with P and came out with the P reaction I was expecting to see.  So, it seems it does work, at least in some cases.  I was hesitant at first to use it, due to it not being pure ethyl alcohol.  Perhaps others can weigh in here.  If you do use it, go for the strong stuff -- 190 proof (I understand they make weaker versions of it).  Regarding the Hypogymnia -- do I see areas with soredia in the photos?

On the Everclear, yes they make a 151 proof as some states don't allow anything over that. Washington is one such, and as I live in Clark County I will have to head across the river to Oregon for the 190 proof. Where would I get pure ethanol? I asked at a pharmacy but the gal first took me to rubbing alcohol on the shelf and when I told her that's not ethanol she sent me to the liquor dept.

 

There are some spots on the Hypogymnia that appear to have soredia, but I convinced myself they were apothecia. (Another purchase I'm saving for is a video microscope as my camera can't quite resolve the smaller features.) The spot tests and general appearance in comparison to the Hypogymnia photos in Macrolichens of the PNW swayed me to H. Canadensis. Also, the lobes on my example certainly appear shingled. Another item I was unclear on was reference to 'floor' and 'ceiling' of the interiors of the hollow lobes. The interiors of my example appear to be white all around and down the length.

 

Thanks for the help!  

I agree with Scot that it looks sorediate (or at least with incipient soredia). That, plus the K test, plus the lobe interiors, plus the growth form suggest it is Hypogymnia tubulosa. That species also has the 3-hydroxyphysodic acid that gives the K+ slow red reaction.

Bruce McCune wrote:

I agree with Scot that it looks sorediate (or at least with incipient soredia). That, plus the K test, plus the lobe interiors, plus the growth form suggest it is Hypogymnia tubulosa. That species also has the 3-hydroxyphysodic acid that gives the K+ slow red reaction.

 

10-4 H. tubulosa Bruce. The wetting I mentioned above allowed me to see the form was not imbricate as I thought, but rather more-or-less dichotomously branching. I also gave another look through a loupe and  it does indeed look like soredia present. Thanks for the help everyone! :-)