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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A fascinating and very entertainingly written article on a strange-looking lichen.
"club lichen": I thought that was Cladonia? But that's the trouble with vernacular names.
Maybe you're thinking of "cup lichens"? Anyway, it made me go back and look at sources, which made me realise that "club lichen" is also used as a common name for the entire genus, so I added that fact.
Esculenta (
talk)
19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A question more than a comment: the lichen is very pale, and (I learn) the algae are clumped into globules rather than being scattered. This is reminiscent of the clumped configuration of chromatophores, which makes them seem less colourful. Is that what's happening here, that the quantity of algae is typical for lichens but the distribution is different?
As is alluded to later, mycologists/lichenologists have historically disagreed how much of a lichen this species is, as there isn't algae in the fruiting bodies, only in the scummy thallus. But it's agreed that this algal scum needs to be there for the fungus to grow, and Masumoto identified the photobiont. So to answer your question, yes, there's an unusual distribution of photobiont in this lichen. Someday I'll make an article on
borderline lichens which will further explore the edge cases of symbiotic fungal-algal relationships.
Esculenta (
talk)
19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, how very interesting!
At the end of 'Habitat and distribution', the "Moreover, ..." connective doesn't work as there is no relationship between the habitat loss issue and the wide documentation. You could reorder the sentences to make it work better.
Is "primeval forest" just a synonym of "old-growth forest"?
Yes; I used both ways of saying it in the article prose so a reader would not be confused by the lesser known synonym used in the source title and text.
Esculenta (
talk)
19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You use the form M. mucida in 'Description' but then switch back to the full name in the later sections. Suggest we use the short form there.
Done (if not starting paragrah/sentences).
Esculenta (
talk)
It feels a bit lumpy to start the 'Current classification' with the name of a different genus.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.