Talk:Chrysothrix candelaris

Fungi: Lichens Low‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lichen task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Erroneous photographs and content[edit]

I regret that this page is not adding to the reputation of Wikipedia, at least not positively so. I am not willing to alter the page, as I am a Wikipedia newbie, and there would be little left if I tried, and I don't have much inclination to try to recreate the page. Frankly, my efforts are directed elsewhere. Nevertheless, I have to point out:

a) the photographs purportedly of Chrysothrix candelaris are not a lichen at all, but are a species of the algal genus Trentepohlia. They are completely misidentified.

b) Chrysothrix candelaris is described, repeatedly, as having no reproductive structures, specifically no apothecia and no soredia. In fact apothecia are known in the species, ^[1]; ^[2], though not yet found in Britain, nor in North America, ^[3] (but one find in Mexico reported by Tonsberg in ^[4]). Frankly, it is a concern that a page on a Northern Hemisphere lichen does not make any reference to any of these standard works. The question of soredia is maybe a matter of opinion, but the surface of C. candelaris is covered with small granules, which are in fact the principal reproductive structures, and recent opinion is to regard them as soredia, as they are inequivocably described in Tonsberg's account and in Smith et al.

c) The inclusion of the photograph supposedly of Lepraria incana is justified by the legend "The closely related Green Powder lichen Lepraria incana." The photograph is not clear enough for identification but does not look like L. incana, at least not in major part (most is probably a green alga), but more to the point, Lepraria is not at all closely related to Chrysothrix and inclusion of the photograph has no relevance.

d) mention of the three chemotypes in this species would be more authoritative if the substances concerned (calycin, pinastric acid) were correctly spelled.

I am sorry that my first ever contribution to Wikipedia is so negative, but really this page has so little substance and so little that is satisfactory, that I think it should be deleted or completely rewritten. Silver lastdragon (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs from above: [1]O.W. Purvis et al., (1992) The lichen flora of Great Britain and Ireland; [2]C.W. Smith, et al. (2009) The lichens of Great Britain and Ireland; [3]I.M. Brodo et al. (2001), Lichens of North America; [4]T.H. Nash et al. (2004) Lichen Flora of the Greater Sonoran Desert Region, vol 2.Silver lastdragon (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does look as if the newbie is right about the misidentification. A number of folk have added to this site and what to do it is not straightforward as the 'ddraig goch' does not want to help. Removing the photographs would be the first step and I will do this as I took them. Rosser Gruffydd 22:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

References

^ O.W. Purvis et al., (1992) The lichen flora of Great Britain and Ireland
^ C.W. Smith, et al. (2009) The lichens of Great Britain and Ireland
^ I.M. Brodo et al. (2001), Lichens of North America
^ T.H. Nash et al. (2004) Lichen Flora of the Greater Sonoran Desert Region, vol 2.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chrysothrix candelaris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] O.W. Purvis et al., (1992) The lichen flora of Great Britain and Ireland

[2] C.W. Smith, et al. (2009) The lichens of Great Britain and Ireland

[3] I.M. Brodo et al. (2001), Lichens of North America

[4] T.H. Nash et al. (2004) Lichen Flora of the Greater Sonoran Desert Region, vol 2.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]