Copyright ©2008 Conservation Commission of Missouri. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
The first literature reference to cite lichenized fungi from Missouri was in 1866, when Frederick Pech reported 24 taxa from the vicinity of the town of Louisiana, in Pike County. This report was not available to later workers, as discussed by Bush (1916). Subsequently, Tuckerman (1872) reported five taxa from the state. In the remainder of the nineteenth century, only five other publications made specific reference to Missouri lichens. When Fink (1899), obviously unaware of the Pech catalog, summarized the status of lichenology in the upper Mississippi River valley, he stated in his text that a total of nine lichen taxa were known from Missouri (although he enumerated twelve taxa from Missouri in the same publication). This was far fewer than for any other state in the region: the same publication attributed 226 lichens to Iowa, 248 to Illinois, and 348 to Minnesota. Referring to the Ozark area more than half a century later, Hale (1957a) wrote that "no professional lichenologist has ever collected in the region". Even recently, Hawksworth and Ahti (1990) cited only three Missouri references in their list of world lichen floras.
In a haphazardly compiled checklist and bibliography of Missouri lichens, Gier and Jones (1954) cited 85 taxa and included a bibliography containing eight references. Although purported to be a comprehensive bibliography of Missouri lichens, it omitted all pre-1900 references and most of the 40 known pre-1953 references to Missouri lichens. In a subsequent checklist, Gier and Kendrick (1972) reported 304 taxa, together with a list of 41 references specifically citing Missouri lichens. Unfortunately, numerous omissions, errors, and miscited references compromise the utility of this work; more than half of the taxa cited by Gier & Kendrick are excluded or reduced to synonymy in the present checklist. Additionally, many lichens attributed to Missouri by sources cited in Gier and Kendrick were based on incorrect determinations.
This work provides a more disciplined, circumspect account of the literature of Missouri lichens through 1995. It includes a nomenclaturally updated annotated list of 436 lichen taxa (including lichenicolous fungi) attributed specifically to Missouri in the literature, along with more than 500 excluded species, synonyms, misapplied names, and orthographic errors that have been used in reference to Missouri lichens. Information regarding reports based upon misidentified specimens is included where known. Also included is an annotated bibliography of 177 publications that make specific reference to Missouri lichens.
The main section of this work is a catalog of all names that have been applied to Missouri lichens, and their contemporary equivalents, arranged alphabetically by genus. Each accepted genus starts with the genus name and authority, below which the species and synonyms are arranged in alphabetical order. Genera represented only by excluded species and synonyms are set off with a line segment. Synonyms, orthographic errors, and excluded species are rendered in italics, and a valid synonym is provided or comments are included to explain the disposition of the name. Included in this category are several lichens reported from Missouri solely by Berry (1936, 1937, 1941). The principal ranges for these lichens are remote from Missouri, and no confirming specimens have been located despite intensive searches. An extremely large proportion of Missouri lichen material determined by Berry has been found to be misidentified. For example, 59 (71%) of the 83 Missouri lichens determined by Berry and deposited at the University of Missouri herbarium (UMO) were misidentified. Circumspection has been exercised when attributing specific lichen taxa to Missouri solely on the basis of unconfirmed reports by Berry; Herre (1942) and Nearing (1951) discuss some of the problems in relying on Berry's work. In each instance, explanations are provided as to why a given species has been excluded from the Missouri flora. A few lichens are attributed to Missouri only on the basis of the shaded range maps in Hale (1969, 1979). Since the resolution of these maps is coarse, slight shading across a state line may not be indicative of lichen presence in that state. Unless confirming specimens or corroborating references are known, these reports are generally excluded, with appropriate explanations.
Names for accepted taxa are rendered in boldface type, generally following the nomenclature of Esslinger and Egan (1995). In accordance with Esslinger and Egan, names for taxa are followed by an asterisk (*) for lichenicolous fungi, a two (**) for saprophytes, and three (***) for lichen-related fungi of uncertain status. In the few instances where the nomenclature used for accepted taxa differs from that of Esslinger & Egan (1995), an explanation is provided. Authorities for lichen names are rendered according to the conventions in Brummit and Powell (1992). Authorities are provided for all accepted taxa and for valid names of taxa that are excluded from Missouri; no authorities are provided for synonyms.
Each entry for an accepted taxon contains a summary of all literature specifically attributing that taxon to Missouri. Literature citations within each entry are arranged alphabetically by author. Each literature citation is preceded by a triangle symbol (_). For multiple works of common authorship, entries are arranged in ascending chronological order. The basis of each report, such as map, cited specimen, or reiteration of previous literature report, is provided where appropriate. The notation "literature report" refers to publications that cite lichens from Missouri on the basis of previously published literature.
Wherever feasible, distribution information is summarized for each reference, rendered on a county basis if possible. Lack of information regarding distribution indicates that the reference attributed the lichen to Missouri without further explication. If a lichen taxon is cited from five or fewer counties, the individual counties are given. Taxa known from more than five counties, or from general range maps, have a comment about their statewide range, such as "SC Mo.", for south-central Missouri. Often, fractions are given to indicate the approximate portion of the state included in the range. Several references include citations from sites that cannot be assigned reliably to a county. Among these are Bennett Spring State Park (Dallas and Laclede counties), Emma (Saline and Pettis counties), Pacific (Franklin and Jefferson counties), and Salt River basin (Monroe and Ralls counties). In these cases the location is given as published in the original reference. A map of Missouri counties is provided on the inside front cover of this report.
If the name used in a reference differs from current nomenclature, the original name is included in brackets at the end of the literature entry. In many instances, species concepts and taxonomic perspectives have changed to the point where it becomes impossible to translate reliably old names into modern taxonomic equivalents. Comments explaining specific details are included in situations where there is confusion about the taxonomic status or nomenclature of a taxon.
Following the catalog is an annotated bibliography that lists all literature sources specifically citing Missouri lichens, together with a brief account of the reference as it pertains to Missouri. References specifically attributing lichens to Missouri are rendered in boldface type, with appropriate annotations. References not specifically attributing lichens to Missouri, but cited in the course of this work, are rendered in standard typeface, without annotations. For references attributing five or fewer taxa to the state, the individual taxa are enumerated, using current nomenclature. References citing more than five taxa from Missouri report the total number of taxa cited from Missouri. Because they convey information relevant to Missouri lichens, this catalog includes several references not usually considered a part of the formal scientific literature, including symposium and workshop handouts and unpublished government technical reports.
Appendix 1, following the annotated bibliography, is a checklist of all the taxa accepted in this catalog. This appendix also provides a quick reference to the number of taxa per genus in the Missouri lichen flora.
This catalog includes information, where known, about cited specimens. Thus, if a literature report is based upon a cited specimen that is known to be misidentified, such information is included. No exhaustive attempts have been made to determine the accuracy of all literature reports; it is highly probable that some taxa reported from Missouri are based on misidentifications. In several instances, reports cannot be confirmed because no specimens were cited, or specimens have not been located. For each of these cases, the disposition of the report is discussed and justified. Numerous literature accounts mention "lichens" from various sites in Missouri without further elaboration. Inasmuch as such citations convey no meaningful information about Missouri's lichen flora, they are omitted from this work.
It may seem trivial or futile to attempt to reconcile existing literature reports into a cogent summary of Missouri lichens. As tedious and protracted as this process can be, I feel it is important in order to develop an accurate summary of the lichens of Missouri, and to begin to develop meaningful information about the ranges of lichens in North America. The literature is rife with spurious reports of lichens from areas remote from their true ranges, obfuscating patterns of lichen distribution, with potentially profound implications for perceived abundance and conservation efforts. To facilitate the process of "cleaning house" in the lichen literature (and Missouri lichenology has accrued a disproportionate need for cleaning!), this work has taken a very conservative approach regarding the criteria for taxa accepted as validly occurring in Missouri. This is not a complete Missouri lichen flora, but rather, I hope, a sound foundation upon which to build a comprehensive flora for the state.
Similarly, it may seem unnecessarily protracted to devote so much explanation to individual specimens that have been found to be misdetermined. These detailed explanations have been provided to document the basis for excluding some literature citations. Additionally, since many collections cited in early literature reports cannot be located, these data provide insights into the concepts of some early workers. It thus becomes important to know the identities of existing collections, in order to shed light on other reports for which collections do not exist.
The lichen flora of Missouri, like that of most of North America, remains poorly studied. Although recent field work has been conducted in every Missouri county, significant areas and habitats remain unexplored. Several newly described taxa have been reported from Missouri (for example Davis 1994; Harris 1992, 1995b; Wilhelm & Ladd 1992), and it is certain that additional undescribed species occur in the state, particularly in the Ozarks. Additionally, several groups of lichens, including such common and widespread genera as Caloplaca, Rinodina, and Verrucaria, remain poorly understood and in need of taxonomic revision.
Relatively few lichens have been described from Missouri type material. Hedrick (1934) described Parmelia finkii from a Wayne County collection; this is considered to be conspecific with Myelochroa obsessa. Interestingly, the type specimen is corticolous, whereas this species is invariably saxicolous in the modern landscape. Wilhelm and Ladd (1992) described Punctelia missouriensis based on a type specimen from Crawford County, Davis (1994) described Coenogonium missouriense from a cave in Pulaski County, and Harris (1995b) described Pyrenula caryae based on material from Iron County. Perhaps the most interesting type described from Missouri is Graphina sophisticascens, described by Nylander (1890) from a collection on Populus labelled simply "Missouri"; neither the collector nor more detailed locality information is provided. This is apparently the only known occurrence for the species. Egan (1983) proposed a new species of Ramalina, R. lecanorica, based on Barry County material, but this name has not been validly published.
Since even basic taxonomic and floristic work remains incomplete, deriving detailed information about habitat affinities, conservatism, substrate specificity, abundance, distribution, and lichen vegetation patterns remains in its infancy. Although this work provides a historical summary of the literature relevant to Missouri lichens and establishes a foundation for developing our knowledge of the local lichen biota, much remains to be accomplished. Despite the preliminary nature of our understanding of Missouri's lichen flora, there is an urgent need to incorporate considerations of lichen biodiversity in statewide conservation activities, as pointed out by Ladd (1991, 1993b)
This work is based on generous contributions of time and expertise by many individuals, only a few of whom can be mentioned here. I am especially appreciative to Lois Brako, Irwin Brodo, William Buck, Robert Egan, Theodore Esslinger, Sam Gibson, Susanne Greenlee, Blane Heumann, Robin Kennedy, Elizabeth Kneiper, Don Kurz, Elisabeth Lay, Dan Marshall, Linda Masters, Bill McKnight, Nancy Morin, Mike Nolan, Sherry Pittam, the late Josef Poelt, Paul Redfearn, Mike Skinner, John Taft, John Thomson, Shirley Tucker, Joanna Turner, William Weber, and George Yatskievych. The library staff at the Missouri Botanical Garden were extremely helpful in facilitating literature searches; special thanks are due to former reference librarian Dale Johnson. The late Mason Hale was instrumental in supporting the concept of this work.
Copyright ©2008 Conservation Commission of Missouri. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use