CRAPHIS ScnIPTA - Universitetet i Oslo

Physma omphalarioides - its taxonomic position and
phytogeography
PER M. JORGENSEN and AINO HENSSEN
J6rgensen, P. M. & Henssen, A. L993: Physma omphalarioides its taronomic
position and phytogeography. Graphis Scripta 5: L2-17. Stockholm.
ISSN 0901 -7593.
Physma omphalaioides (Anzl) Arnold is shown not to belong in the mainly
tropical genus Physma Massal., but rather to the temperate Staurolemma
K6rber, a genus closely related to the primarily Pacific genus Ramalodiam
Nyl. Staurolemma omphalarioides (Anzi) P. M. JOrg. & Henssen comb. nov.
is basically a Mediterranean lichen, reaching Macaronesia, including the
Cape Verde Is., with a remarkably disjunct occurrence on the west-coast of
Nonray, just south of the Arctic Circle.
Per M. Jgrgensen, p.t. Botany Dept., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 sBD, England.
Aino Henssen, Fachbereich Biologie, Philipps-(Jniversitiit, D-3550 MarburglLahn,
Germany.
To discover a new genus of foliose lichens in
Scandinavia in our time, is a rare event. It is
therefore remarkable that no less than three
such genera were discovered about the time of
the Second World War by the two Swedish
botanists, Sten Ahlner and Gunnar Degelius.
While the cases of Cavernulaia hultenii
Degel. and Erioderma pedicellatum (Hue) P.
M. JOrg. are well-known (Ahlner 1948,
Degelius 1952, J6rgensen L990), that of Physma
omphalaioides (Anzi) Arnold (Degelius
1955) has nearly been forgotten, to the degree
that it was not even included in the two most
recent macrolichen floras of Nonvay (Dahl &
Krog 1973, Krog et al. 1980). This oversight
may be the result of the fact that this species,
unlike the other two, was not used in the
debate on glacial survival of the Scandinavian
flora. The phytogeographical problems concerning
P. omphalaioides are, however, as
shown below, as intriguing as those of the
other two.
It is now more than 40 Years since
Degelius discovered this interesting lichen. We
would therefore like to take this opportunity to
update the knowledge of this undeservedly
neglected species.
The generic problem
As seen from the synonomy listed below, this
lichen was placed in several different genera
through the years, most frequently appearing
in the literature as a Lempholemma K6rber,
or Physma Massal. Arnold (1867) who
referred it to the latter, paid most attention to
the similarity in apothecia. Zahlbruckner
(1924) definitely based his transfer to Lempholemma
on thalline characters. As already
pointed out by Dughi (1946) this species has
no close relationship with Lempholemma
which belongs in the Lichinaceae, which has
quite different fruitbodies (mostly pycnoascocarps),
paraphyses and asci (see Henssen