cover

Bettina Staiger:

Die Flechtenfamilie Graphidaceae

Studien in Richtung einer natürlichen Gliederung

2002. 526 Seiten, 203 Abbildungen, 5 Tabellen, 11 Tafeln, 14x23cm, 980 g
Language: Deutsch

(Bibliotheca Lichenologica, Band 85)

ISBN 978-3-443-58064-3, brosch., price: 128.00 €

in stock and ready to ship

Order form

BibTeX file

Contents

Inhaltsbeschreibung top ↑

Das bei Graphidaceae (Ordnung Ostropales, lichenisierte Ascomycota) bisher geltende System der Sporengattungen, das auf Müller Arg. (1880a, 1882b) zurückgeht, wurde bereits von mehreren Autoren (Santesson 1952, Wirth & Hale 1978, Kalb & Staiger 2001), als künstlich und unnatürlich erkannt. Ausgehend von umfangreichen morphologischen, anatomischen, chemischen und einzelnen molekulargenetischen Untersuchungen an annähernd 1000 Proben, die 175 Arten angehören, wird eine Neugliederung der Familie vorgeschlagen. Es werden dabei insbesondere die nach derzeitigen Gesichtspunkten für wichtig erachteten Merkmale wie Fruchtkörperbau, Paraphysentyp, Ascusbau und Ascosporentyp berücksichtigt. Die vorliegende Studie stellt somit einen ersten Schritt in Richtung einer natürlicheren Einteilung dieser Flechtenfamilie dar.

Für die Arbeit wurden alle 70 derzeit den Graphidaceae zugerechneten Gat- tungen (Eriksson & Hawksworth 1998, modifiziert und ergänzt) berücksichtigt, und insbesondere die bislang als Synonyme der Sporengattungen Graphiis, Graphina, Phaeographis und Phaeographina geführten Genera auf eine mögliche Eigenständigkeit hin überprüft.

Synopsis top ↑

The system of spore-based genera in the family Graphidaceae (Order Ostropales, lichenised Ascomycotina) was established by Müller Arg. (1880a, 1882b) and is still in use. As stated by several authors (Santesson 1952, Wirth & Hale 1978, Kalb & Staiger 2001), it is an unnatural and artificial system and therefore needs to be revised. After detailed chemical, morphological, anatomical examinations of 1000 samples belonging to 175 species as well as several molecular-genetic analyses, a new generic division of the family is proposed. Characters like ascocarp structure, ascus structure, paraphysis-type, and ascospore-type that play an important role in modern systematics, are considered in particular. This study contributes to developing a more natural division of this lichen family.

All 70 genera hitherto assigned to the Graphidaceae (Eriksson & Hawksworh 1998, modified and complemented) have been included in this study; particularly the genera so far treated as synonyms of the spore genera Graphis, Graphina, Phaeographis and Phaeographina have been examined with regard to their possible ressurrection as independent genera. Particular emphasis is placed on the genera previously treated as synonyms of the spore-based genera.

Bespr.: Mycotaxon vol. 86 top ↑

The generic concepts in the graphideoid lichens have traditionally been based on the Saccardo spore groups. This has long been recognized as unsatisfactory, not least because more fundamental differences in exciple structure particularly were available for use. However, most lichenologists have been deterred from addressing the problem because of the shear numbers of taxa involved, encompassing some 78 generic names and around 1000 species.

Bettina Staiger, already known for her careful revision of Haematomma (Staiger & Kalb 1995), has risen to the task. Here she addresses the application of all pertinent generic names, and examined around 1000 collections representing 175 species. Nineteen genera are accepted, seventeen formerly described before (but mainly hidden in the synonymy of spore-based genera) and two proposed as new (Carbacanthographis and Platythecium). A major obstacle to progress in the group had been the number of generic names that were previously untypified; 11 generic names are typified here to resolve this issue. The characters used are mainly based on the structure and location of the excipular and hypothecial tissues, supplemented by iodine reactions of the ascospores, and also ascospore colour (but not so much septation). Many of the names now used will be unfamiliar, and where well-known names are accepted this is with revised circumscriptions. Graphis, Phaeographis and Sarcographa remain, and Phaeographina is kept for the moment just for its type species. Graphina becomes a synonym of Ustalia, the former name not being proposed for conservation as only a few species formerly placed there remain. I was amused to see that Phaeographis still needed to be conserved against several older synonyms, having been involved in proposing this over 20 years ago (Hawksworth & Sherwood 1981)! Four generic names are categorized as 'nomina dubia et rejicienda'; formal rejection, however, requires Committee action under the Code, and it could be prudent to make such proposals to preclude all risks of their resurrection.

The system now proposed needs to be tested, and where possible vindicated, by molecular data. The author carried out a little molecular work as a part of this investigation using LSU rDNA which suggested the studies were on the right lines, but as only 11 species were sequenced the results must be treated as preliminary.

The line drawings and photographs are certainly the best yet to have been prepared of these lichens. These, taken with the extended English summary and English versions of the detailed overall key and the keys to species within each genus, will ensure the accessibility of the work to those who do not read German. The author deserves our congratulations on a job well-done, and after the dust settles over the old concepts and numbers of name changes, the work is sure to be regarded as one of the classic lichen revisions.

Dr. David L.Hawksworth

Mycotaxon vol. 86

Inhaltsverzeichnis top ↑

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG 5
SUMMARY 10
1. EINLEITUNG 15
2. DANKSAGUNG 19
3. MATERIAL, METHODEN UND ABKÜRZUNGEN 21
3.1 Material 21
3.2 Methoden 23
3.2.1 Molekulargenetische Methoden 23
3 2.2 Dünuschichtchromatographie 24
3.2 3 Lichtmikroskopie 25
3.2 4 Rasterelektronenmikroskopie 26
3 2.5 Fotogratische Aufnahmen 26
3.3 Abkürzungen 26

4. ERGEBNISSE UND DISKUSSION 27
4.1 Ergebnisse, allgemeiner Teil: Morphologie, Anatomie, Chemie und
Molekulargenetik 27
4.1.1 Fruchtkörperbau und Fruchtkörperentwicklung 27
4.1.2 Hymenium 31
4.1.3 Paraphysen 31
4.1.4 Periphysoide 32
4.1.5 Ascus 33
4.1.6 Ascosporen 34
4.1.7 Pycnidien und Pycnosporen 37
4.1.8 Stroma 37
4.19 Phallus 41
4.1.10 Kristalle 42
4.1.11 Chemie 43
4.1.12 Ergebnisse der molekulargenetischen Untersuchungen 46
4.2 Diskussion 49
4.3 Ergebnisse, spezieller Teil 54
4.3.1 Schlüssel zu den Gattungen der Graphidaceae 54
Key to the genera of the family Graphidaceae 62
4.3.2 Beschreibungen der Gattungen (alphabetisch) und der behandelten
Arten 68

Acanthothecis 68
Anomalographis 85
Anomomorpha 88
Carbacanthographis 98
Diorygma 113
Dyplolabia 114
Fissurina 117
Glaucinaria 164
Graphis 181
Gymnographa 266
Gymnographopsis 273
Hemithecium 275
Leiorreuma 293
Phaeographina 306
Phaeographis 309
Platygramme 352
Platythecium 370
Sacrographa 392
Solenographa 420
Thalloloma 321
Thecaria 444
4.3.3 Arten mit noch ungeklärter Gattungszugehörigkeit 450
4.3.4 Auszuschließende Gattungen, Gattungen mit ungeklärter syste-
matischer Stellung und nomina dubia et rejicienda 455
4.3 5 Übersicht der Gattungen 461
5. LITERATURVERZEICHNIS 475
FOTOTAFELN 488
INDEX 510