daphne stone wrote:
The CMA is good. The shape of soralia and if it has isidia or not. UV+ or UV- (that is the 1st char I'd look at if there are big white annular rings). Then I'd use my previous knowledge, which as i mentioned, will be in a little pamplet in a year or so.
They're just really tough and highly variable.
Bruce McCune wrote:
I agree with Daphne, to use the CMA on this. U. silesiaca is somewhat distinctive in that (see p. 359). Annular cracking can be indicative but rarely conclusive. I would also check the chemistry, but without TLC it's more challenging. Note that U. silesiaca keys as either pendulous or tufted. It's often tufted or in between.
---------------------------
You folks rock! My deep genuflections, in your directions.
Bruce, I'm finding your illustrated glossary particularly useful as I climb Mt. Argot. Hopefully I crest before the pages wear out.
I'll do another longitudinal section and try for a better CMA. Also will redo chemical tests, and while I'm not sure of the wavelength, I think I recall that my grandson has a UV light in a detective kit. Will that work?
You both mention the isidia, and in my inexperience I don't know if I'm seeing isidia or just small fibrils. Tips? Thoughts from my photos? Need more/better photos?
Thanks for all! :)