Sphaerophorus

Day 88: Bugger. And forgive me for that. Just when it looks like the taxonomy of a species is finally going to settle down, some sadist has to come along and propose a new classification. This particular Sphaerophorus has flip-flopped between "globosus" and "venerabilis" multiple times in the last decade and, if you'll look back through my posts, I've identified it as both with footnotes and foul language. Well, here we go again. Apparently it is sufficiently dissimilar to merit its own name: Sphaerophorus tuckermanii. I quote: "The perplexing morphological variation in form of the S. globosus complex, to which this species belongs, has created much confusion, including misapplication of S. tuckermanii to what is now S. venerabilis. Hognabba and Wedine (2003) demonstrated three distinct evoluntionary lines: S. globosus growing on the ground in arctic-alpine habitats and as an epiphyte in Europe; S. tuckermanii, a Pacific Northwest epiphyte with many coralloid branches; and S. venerabilis, a Pacific Northwest epiphyte with few coralloid branches." Now I might be wrong about this particular specimen, but I don't think so. Walking through trailless forest, I was drawn to it as if it was a Crow-magnet and remarked from ten feet away, "Venerabilis? Um...something is wrong here. I'm going to have to double-check that." Really, people, can't we at least have one point in the universe remain stable for a week or two? Life is chaotic enough without lichens switching identities every few months.

How Do You Spell That?

Day 181: If you hang around any gathering of lichenologists long enough, you'll hear somebody mention the "pee test." You'll have misspelled that mentally, I guarantee it. What they are talking about has nothing to do with urine. The "P test" of lichenology uses p-phenylenediamine to see if a specimen contains certain reactive lichen substances. P is generally only available in large, pricey quantities which put it out of reach for most amateurs, but fortunately, one of the professionals at the Northwest Lichenologists conference had it made up in small, affordable bottles. She referred to it as "a lifetime supply"; it only takes a few grains of P dissolved in ethanol to make a drop or two of solution, but the solution has a shelf life of two days at most. Then it should be discarded and freshly made. Since only a small amount is needed, the best container for the job is a 0.2 ml disposable centrifuge tube, something else which is only available in sizeable quantities. Ever wonder what 1000 0.2 ml centrifuge tubes look like? I didn't actually count them, but that's what the package said. I can P whenever I want now!

Sue's Gift

Day 62: She handed me a box, "...because you do so much for science and the Park." Inside I discovered the newly-released two-volume set of Bruce McCune's "Microlichens of the Pacific Northwest," which pretty much rendered me speechless. The Park hired a term "veg person" a few months ago, and Arnie insisted that I needed to meet her. We hit it off immediately and fell to making plans regarding sites of interest in the pursuit of a particularly rare little fungus next summer. On common ground, we talked about plants and maps and adventures, past and projected, and some time later, Sue wrote to me and asked if I'd seen McCune's new books. I had not, and after pricing them, I wasn't quite sure I could afford to give myself a second Christmas present. Then I received a follow-up email from Sue, saying she'd ordered them for me as a gift. Yesterday, she delivered them to me with those words, "...because you do so much for science and the Park," echoing something Arnie had told her when he was arranging our meet-up. I said, "I hope he didn't put me up as an expert, because I'm not. I'm learning right alongside you, Sue," and then I added, "and these books are fantastic! They're really going to be helpful with the vocabulary because they're so visual!" It's hard to picture something accurately in your mind when you only have a verbal description. What exactly does "granular" mean when it's held up against "farinaceous?" McCune's photos make the distinction clear. Suffice to say, I have my reading cut out for me, and Sue's wonderful gift will help me do more "for science and the Park."

Sphaerophorus Globosus

Day 35: This post of Sphaerophorus globosus (a graceful and beautiful lichen) is in celebration of a new Parkie friend, Sue. She works in Natural Resources and has only recently discovered the joys of lichenology. She has asked me to tutor her (not that I'm an expert!), a proposal which required no arm-twisting for me to agree. Yesterday, we did a short tour of the parking area at Longmire, and following her request, I did not identify anything, but explained what identification points to look for on a number of different species. Then on the way home, I had her make a U-turn in order to show her Usnea longissima, and stretched out a strand of Nature's Christmas garland to show her the "spinal cord" in the middle. It was a rather brief lesson, but there will be many more to come!

Dichotomously Branched Rhizines

Day 1 of YEAR EIGHT! I'm going to start you off with a couple of those big "science words" I throw around so freely because it's crucial to know what to look for if you're trying to identify this particular common lichen. Parmelia hygrophila grows on tree bark and is grouped with others as "shield lichens," meaning that they form a mass which adheres closely to the substrate (i.e., the bark, in this case). We refer to this as being "tightly appressed," but that's a feature shared with a lot of other lichens. The words I'd like to introduce are "rhizine" and "dichotomous." "Rhizine" refers to the root-like structures on the back side of the thallus (body). Sometimes these structures are so fine that you need a microscope to see them. At the very least, you need a hand lens to tell how those of the Parmelias branch. Enter "dichotomously," i.e., they form two-pronged forks ("di-" means "two").

Looking at these under a 20x stereo microscope, it's easier to identify individual rhizines if you view a piece of the thallus from the top and observe where they stick out along the sides. Viewed from the bottom, they just look like a mass of tangled threads. Note the inset in the upper left. See how some of the threads have split ends? That's "dichotomous branching." Parmelia hygrophila exhibits dichotomous branching, as opposed to its look-alikes P. saxatilis (unbranched) and P. sulcata, which has squarrulose ("bottlebrush") rhizines. We'll save "squarrulose" for another day.

Comparative Lichenology

Day 41: East meets West for today's essay! A friend recently sent me two lichen specimens from Maine in the hopes that I could identify them for her. One of them was a member of the generic category of "Old Man's Beard lichens," specifically Usnea filipendula (Fishbone Beard, top photos). It put me in mind of my favourite among the Usneas, Methuselah's Beard (U. longissima, lower photos), so I thought it would be fun to present them paired, and thus took a short hike to a location where longissima is abundant.

As you can see, Fishbone is much more compact and delicate. Longissima grows in graceful strands up to ten feet in length. Filipendula branches abundantly, and Methuselah's Beard consists of threads on a central stem, much like a Christmas garland. A microscopic view reveals that isidia (grain-like reproductive units which detach easily from the thallus) are present on both specimens, but are more numerous in the case of filipendula. Both species are excellent air-quality indicators. Sensitive to even small amounts of pollution, Usneas only grow where the air is pure.

Exploring Strange New Worlds

Day 25: When the mechanical stage arrived yesterday, it occurred to me that although I've featured photos of what I've seen through the new microscope so far, I hadn't properly introduced my new toy. Suffice to say that I am delighted with it, particularly because it allows me to share images with my readers, letting them explore strange new worlds right alongside me.

For those of you who are detail-oriented, it is an AmScope M200. It came with two eyepieces, 10x and 25x. The available magnifications are 40x, 100x, 250x, 400x and 100x (a duplicate occurs when changing eyepieces because 10 x 10 = 4 x 25). The 0.3mp camera which came with the 'scope replaces the eyepiece and seems to give a higher magnification yet, but I am not certain of the factor. Admittedly, that's pretty low-end despite what you might think from the images I've posted so far, and therefore I intend to upgrade to a 2.0-3.0mp camera at some point (maybe a birthday present-to-self). An X-acto knife set serves as my dissecting kit, and of course I have a selection of petri dishes, slides and stains waiting for specimens.

As for the mechanical stage, at high magnification, it is almost impossible to move a slide with any degree of accuracy by hand. The mechanical stage holds the slide firmly and with the twist of a knob, allows it to be moved laterally or side-to-side with precision. The tissue can therefore be centered in the field of view so that when moving to a stronger objective, only minor adjustments need to be made.

Back when I was in high school, this 'scope would have qualified as "professional grade." Technology has put science in the reach of almost everyone, so what are you waiting for? Go exploring!