Text anzeigen (PDF) - bei DuEPublico - Universität Duisburg-Essen
Text anzeigen (PDF) - bei DuEPublico - Universität Duisburg-Essen
Text anzeigen (PDF) - bei DuEPublico - Universität Duisburg-Essen
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
2. Taxonomic part 16<br />
(ascospores hyaline, muriform). Three years later, Müller Argoviensis (1890) added<br />
Chroodiscus for foliicolous taxa.<br />
This concept was recognized as artificial by many workers, but it was not until the end of<br />
the 20 th century that attempts were made towards a more natural classification. First Salisbury<br />
(1971, 1972a, 1972b 1978) proposed to abandon ascospore characters for the generic<br />
delimitation. He suggested to merge all species into a single genus Thelotrema, with three<br />
subgenera distinguished by the morphology of the ascoma margin, each divided into different<br />
species groups characterized by further ascomata features: Thelotrema sect. Ascidium<br />
(including the T. discolor-, T. cavatum- and T. discoideum-group) - carbonized with absent<br />
lateral paraphyses; Thelotrema sect. Myriotrema (including the T. compunctum- and the T.<br />
bahianum-group) – non-carbonized with absent lateral paraphyses; Thelotrema sect.<br />
Thelotrema (including the T. lepadinum- and the T. platycarpum-group) - non-carbonized<br />
with present lateral paraphyses. Subsequently, Hale (1980, 1981) implemented Salisbury’s<br />
concept with minor modifications and introduced three major genera equivalent to Salisbury’s<br />
subgenera: Myriotrema (=T. sect. Myriotrema), Ocellularia (=T. sect. Ascidium) and<br />
Thelotrema (=T. sect. Thelotrema). Ever since, Hale’s classification was broadly accepted<br />
(e.g., David & Hawksworth, 1995; Sipman, 1993, 1994; Matsumoto, 2000; Homchantara &<br />
Coppins, 2002; Frisch, 2006) and is still in use, although it was also soon realized that the<br />
distinction in three large genera was too coarse and did not mirror phylogenetic relationships.<br />
However, some authors (Poelt & Vezda, 1981; Purvis & al., 1995) rejected Hale’s<br />
classification and suggested to place all core genera in one large genus Thelotrema following<br />
Salisbury’s proposal. On the other hand, numerous smaller homogeneous groups were divided<br />
and introduced as separate genera in subsequent years: Ampliotrema (Kalb, 2004),<br />
Chroodiscus (Kantvilas & Vezda, 2000; Lücking, 1992; Lücking & Kalb, 2000; Lumbsch &<br />
Vezda, 1990), Ingvariella (Guderley & Lumbsch, 1996), Nadvornikia (Tibell, 1984),<br />
Pseudoramonia (Kantvilas & Vezda, 2000), Reimnitzia (Kalb, 2001), Topeliopsis (Kantvilas<br />
& Vezda, 2000; Kalb, 2001).<br />
Recently, Frisch (2006) and Frisch & Kalb (2006) described five new genera<br />
(Acanthotrema, Fibrillithecis, Gyrotrema, Melanotrema, Redingeria) and resurrected four<br />
formerly described genera (Chapsa, Leptotrema, Leucodecton, Stegobolus). Meanwhile, other<br />
genera formerly included were transferred to other families, e.g. Conotrema to Stictidaceae<br />
(Eriksson & al., 2003), Gyrostomum to Graphidaceae (Staiger, 2002), Ramonia to<br />
Gyalectaceae (Eriksson & al., 2003), Tremotylium (=Minksia) to Roccellaceae (Makhija &<br />
Patwardhan, 1995). The systematic position of Phaeotrema is still uncertain, according to<br />
Salisbury (1978) its type species Pyrenula subfarinosa is a non-lichenized fungus. In contrast<br />
to the above mentioned three main genera, Diploschistes, an additional, species-rich genus<br />
included in Thelotremataceae, forms a homogeneous species-group that is also well supported<br />
by molecular data (Lumbsch & al., 2004a; Frisch & al., 2006). It was placed in its own family<br />
(Diploschistaceae) by Zahlbruckner (1905), but has been placed in Thelotremataceae for a<br />
long time (Gilenstam, 1969).<br />
2. 2. Taxonomic studies and collections of trentepohlioid thelotremataceaen<br />
Graphidaceae in Australia<br />
Until recently all contributions to the knowledge of thelotrematoid lichens in Australia<br />
were restricted to floristic studies. The majority of known species from this continent are<br />
based on collections made by early naturalists in the late 19 th century. Amongst the most<br />
important collectors of this time were F. M. Bailey (1827-1915), an appointed colonial<br />
botanist and curator at the Queensland Museum (Brisbane); the New Zealand botanist and<br />
passionate lichenologist C. Knight (1808-1891), who collected in New Zealand, but also in<br />
Queensland and New South Wales; the educationist and scientist J. Shirley (1849-1922), who