15.06.2013 Views

Text anzeigen (PDF) - bei DuEPublico - Universität Duisburg-Essen

Text anzeigen (PDF) - bei DuEPublico - Universität Duisburg-Essen

Text anzeigen (PDF) - bei DuEPublico - Universität Duisburg-Essen

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!