(2009): Lichens in Scandinavia known mainly from Norwegian type ...

Lichens in Scandinavia known mainly from Norwegian typespecimens 

PER M. JØRGENSEN and ANDERS NORDIN 

Jørgensen, P. M. & Nordin, A. 2009: Lichens known mainly from Norwegian typespecimens. 

Graphis Scripta 21: 1–20. Stockholm. ISSN 0901-7593. 

About 50 lichen species are in Scandinavia only known from Norway, many with the type 

as the only specimen. A few of these are truly rare or overlooked species, such as Bacidia 

verecundula, Caloplaca havaasii, Ionaspis granvina, Metamelanea caesiella, Micarea 

osloënsis, and the most remarkable of them all, Buellia tesserata, a widespread but rare, 

thermomediterranean species, which has not been recollected in Norway since its 

description. The majority, however, belong in critical, poorly understood genera, such as 

Lecidea, Polyblastia and Verrucaria and are probably only synonyms of more common 

species. They are in need of further studies, preferably on recently collected material, 

since many of them are only known from old, small, poorly developed specimens. In a 

few cases it has been possible to come to a definite identification with older names: 

Aspicilia alexandri and A. austronorvegica = Aspilidea myrinii, Bacidia luridoglaucella = 

Bacidina inundata, Lecidea atrocuprea = Tremolecia atrata, L. epiploica = Calvitimela 

perlata, Verrucaria osloënsis (syn. nov. Verrucaria magnussoniana) = Verrucaria 

macrostoma. All names are typified. 

Two Lecidea species from the top of Galdhøpiggen mountain (2469 m), L. altissima 

and L. ludificans, both apparently distinct species closely related to Arctic taxa, are 

important additions to the arctic-alpine element and the only likely endemics among 

Norwegian lichens. 

Per M. Jørgensen, Department of Natural History, Bergen Museum, University of Bergen, 

Allégaten 41, N-5007 Bergen, Norway. E-mail: per.jorgensen@bm.uib.no 

Anders Nordin, Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 16, SE-752 36 

Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: anders.nordin@evolmuseum.uu.se 

The checklist of Fennoscandian lichens and 

lichenicolous fungi (Santesson et al. 2004) 

includes several lichen species only known 

from restricted areas in Norway. Many of these 

are only known from one locality, often the 

type-locality. Some are species which for 

ecophysiological reasons are restricted to 

Norway (Tønsberg et al. 1996), most 

prominently the oceanic element, mainly found 

on the wet southwestern coast (Degelius 1935, 

Jørgensen 1996), e.g. Arthonia ilicina, 

Bactrospora homalotropa, Cladonia callosa, 

Gomphillus calycoides, Leptogium britannicum, 

Megalospora pachycarpa, Parmotrema arnoldii, 

Parmeliella testacea, Rinodina isidioides, 

Solenopsora vulturiensis, Stenocybe nitida, 

Thelotrema macrosporum, and Wadeana minuta. 

The moist spruce forests of central Norway 

(Nord-Trøndelag and S Nordland) contains an 

even more remarkable element, sometimes 

penetrating further inland, even into Sweden 

(Ahlner 1947), which is shared with similar 

wet forests in North America (The 

Newfoundland-region and the Pacific coast) 

(Holien & Tønsberg 1996), e.g. Biatora 

chrysanthoides, Bryoria americana, Chaeno-

GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009) Lichens mainly known from Norwegian types 2 

theca hygrophila, Erioderma pedicellatum and 

Szcawinskia leucopoda. 

Norway surprisingly also has the driest, 

most continental regions in Fennoscandia, 

those of the inner, dry valleys of Opland and 

adjacent counties, in the rain shadow of 

Jotunheimen (Ahlner 1949, Kleiven 1959), 

which contain xerophilous steppe-elements, not 

found elsewhere in our region, e.g. Buellia 

asterella, Caloplaca tominii, Fulgensia 

desertorum, Gyalidea asteriscus, Phaeorrhiza 

sareptana, Rinodina terrestris, Squamarina 

magnussonii, Toninia sculpturata and T. 

taurica. 

Norway reaches further north than any other 

of the Fennoscandian countries and has the 

highest mountains. This is reflected in arcticalpine 

species, such as Arctocetraria andrejevii, 

Asahinea chrysantha, Buellia adjuncta, Lobothallia 

alphoplaca and Rhizocarpon dinothetes. 

Finally there remains a residue of rare 

species which does not necessarily fall into 

these categories. They are all described from 

Norway and have remained known only, or 

mainly, from the type-collections. They 

therefore need particular attention, requiring 

reexamination, preferably on freshly collected 

material to ascertain their taxonomic and 

conservation status. There are two possible 

main reasons for their rarity: 

1. They are parts of poorly understood species 

complexes in difficult, not fully understood 

genera. 

2. They are genuinely rare or overlooked. 

From a conservation point of view it is 

important to single out the truly rare species 

with their only Scandinavian occurrence in 

Norway, and to see if they represent phytogeographical 

elements to which also other rare 

lichens belong. 

We are not in a position to resolve the 

matter fully as we have been unable to secure 

the necessary new material for study, but we 

have prepared a commented list on them, 

hopefully inspiring other colleagues to make an 

attempt to resolve the remaining problems, 

which are long overdue. 

We have as far as possible studied the type 

specimens microscopically and chemically 

(TLC). However, some types are so minute that 

we have not dared to take more bits, 

particularly if studies of spores or chemistry 

would not be taxonomically important. 

List of species 

Acarospora impressula Th.Fr. 

Type: Norway, Akershus, Lindøya, 1869, N.G. 

Moe (UPS!, lectotype, here selected, Fig. 1). 

TLC: no substancees detected. 

This is a rather nondescript species in the 

Acarospora badiofusca group. Magnusson 

(1929) points out the dark, continuous, areolate 

crust with a negative C-reaction, the immersed 

apothecia, and the broadly ellipsoid spores. The 

collector of the original material has noted that 

it grew only on dry rocks warmed by the 

afternoon sun, which is an indication that it is 

one of the southern thermophilous elements, 

restricted to the Oslofjord-region (e.g. Anema) 

or also present in SE Sweden. This might 

account for its rarity, but the world distribution 

of this species does not confirm this. In Central 

Europe it is recorded as a high montane species 

Figure 1. Acarospora impressula, part of 

lectotype. Bar = 1 mm.

3 Per Magnus Jørgensen & Anders Nordin GRAPHIS SCRIPTA 21 (2009) 

(Wirth 1995), not one of the dry, warm valleys, 

and in Britain it is known to be coastal (James 

et al. 1992). If the taxonomy is correctly 

understood it is difficult to see why it should be 

rare in Scandinavia. There is only one 

additional record from this region, namely from 

Finland, and that is doubtful. We conclude that 

this species must either be taxonomically misunderstood 

or overlooked. It has not recently 

been recollected in the type locality which is 

partly destroyed by building, but in 1905 it was 

collected by Havaas (see Havaas, Lich. exs. 

Norv. 508) in another locality in the Oslofjordislands 

(Hovedøya), where Magnusson himself 

later found it in quantity in 1920 (4 collections in 

UPS), but where it has not been recollected since. 

Acarospora rosulata (Th.Fr.) H.Magn. 

Type: Norway, Oppland, Vågå, Visted, 1863, 

Th. M. Fries (UPS!, holotype of Acarospora 

discreta f. rosulata Th.Fr., Fig. 2). TLC: 

gyrophoric acid 

This is a most characteristic species related to 

A. peliscypha Th.Fr., but with distinct marginal 

lobes forming rosettes and a whitish lower 

surface. It was recollected at Viste during the 

Nordic Lichen Society’s excursion in 1985 

Figure 2. Acarospora rosulata, part of 

holotype. Bar = 2 mm. 

Figure 3. Acarospora verruciformis, part of 

lectotype. Bar = 2 mm. 

(L. Tibell, UPS and E. Timdal, O) when it was 

found to be locally quite common, and it is 

presumably still present in the type locality. It 

is also known from Lom in Norway, and there 

are additional records from Greenland and 

Svalbard, as well as Iceland. Probably it is part 

of the arctic-alpine element. 

Acarospora verruciformis H.Magn. 

Type: Norway, Sør-Trøndelag, Røros, 1919, A. 

H. Magnusson 3688 (UPS!, lectotype, here 

selected, Fig. 3). TLC: no substances detected. 

This is a fairly charcteristic, bullate species in 

the A. smaragdula complex. Its rarity is best 

explained by its special ecological 

requirements, heavy metal rocks, but surely 

there are suitable habitats elsewhere in 

Scandinavia as well. It has, however, been 

recorded from Greenland (Magnusson 1929) 

and the British Isles, though Purvis & James 

(1992) reports that two different taxa are 

involved. It has not been recollected in the type 

locality.


Aspicilia alexandri R.Sant. 

Type: Norway, Hedmark, Tronfjell, 1912, B. 

Lynge (BG!, lectotype of Lecanora 

zahlbruckneri Lynge, here selected). 

The original material, of which we have only 

been able to locate a specimen at BG, represents 

Aspilidea myrinii, a common and 

widespread species in our region, described 

from the mountains between Sogn and Valdres. 

Aspicilia austronorvegica (H.Magn.) 

Type: Norway, Vest-Agder, Lyngdal, 

Kvinesdalheia, 1939, A. H. Magnusson 16799 

(UPS!, holotype of Lecanora austronorvegica 

H.Magn.). 

Like the former this also represents Aspilidea 

myrinii. The name has not formally been 

combined into Aspicilia. 

Aspicilia lecideoidea Hue 

Type: Norway, Dovrefjeld (collector and year 

not indicated, but probably Schimper 1844) 

(PC, holotype, non vidi). 

Since the type has not been located in PC, it is 

quite impossible to say what this name 

represents in spite of Hue’s detailed 

description (1910). It is even doubtful that it 

represents an Aspicilia in the present 

circumscription. Magnusson (1939) compares 

his new species Aspicilia austronorvegica with 

A. lecidoidea, so it may prove to be yet another 

synonym of Aspilidea myrinii. 

Anyway, rarity is certainly not the reason 

for the lack of other records, but rather doubts 

concerning the identity of the type. It is 

certainly not endemic to Dovre or Norway. 

Aspicilia mazarina (Wahlenb.) R.Sant. 

Type: Norway, Finnmark, Par. Tana, ad 

Kamiokaisse, 1802, G. Wahlenberg (UPS!, 

holotype of Lichen mazarinus Wahlenb.). 

This name has been incorrectly applied to 

members of the A. gibbosa group and was 

reserved exclusively for the type by Santesson 

(1984). However, Magnusson (1939) correctly 

suggested that it might be an aberrant form of 

Aspicilia aquatica, and thus the oldest name for 

this widespread, variable species. A conservation 

of the name Aspicilia aquatica against 

Lichen mazarinus has recently been proposed 

(Nordin & Jørgensen 2008). 

Aspicilia nordlandica (H.Magn.) Degel. 

Type: Norway, Nordland, Lofoten, Værøy, 

Guldakseln, 1922, G. E. DuRietz (UPS!, holotype, 

Fig. 4). TLC: norstictic acid. 

This is a well-defined species, according to 

Magnusson (1939) belonging to the cinereagroup, 

but with darker thallus, smaller 

apothecia and larger spores than A. cinerea. 

Further the paraphyses are distinctly nonmoniliform. 

The known distribution is restricted 

to Lofoten and the islands of southern 

Helgeland (Vega). The record from Sweden 

(LuL?) is certainly erroneous and no specimen 

to verify it has been located. It has in vain been 

Figure 4. Aspicilia nordlandica, part of 

holotype. Bar = Bar 0.5 mm.


searched for in coastal regions further south (in 

Hordaland) and appears to belong in a most 

interesting, poorly understood phytogeographic 

element, also known from some flowering 

plants, well exemplified by Rorippa islandica 

(Oeder ex Murray) Borbas subsp. islandica 

(Jonsell 1968). That taxon is also known from 

Iceland, northern Scotland and Greenland as 

well as Switzerland. 

Aspicilia scabrida (Degel.) R.Sant. 

Type: Norway, Forsand, Frafjorddalen, 

Brådlandsfossen, N-sidan, 1947, G. Degelius 

(UPS!, holotype of Lecanora scabrida). TLC: 

norstictic acid. 

PMJ has in vain searched for this species in the 

region from where it was described, a region 

where he grew up. He only succeeded in 

refinding it on the very rock where Degelius 

originally collected it. This made him 

suspicious of its status. AN regards it as an 

extreme form of Aspicila epiglypta, a species 

which occurs rather frequently in this region. 

The spores are not as large as recorded by 

Degelius and falls well within the variation of 

A. epiglypta. 

Aspicilia subarctica (H.Magn.) Creveld 

Type: Norway, Troms, Karlsøy, N of Tromsø, 

1861, A. J. Malmgren (UPS!, holotype of 

Lecanora subarctica H.Magn.). 

The specimen is best classified as part of the 

Aspicilia zonata complex (Nordin et al. 2007). 

See also under Aspicilia tromsoënsis below. 

Aspicilia tromsoënsis (H.Magn.) Räsänen 

Type: Norway, Troms, Karlsøy, N of Tromsø, 

1861, A. J. Malmgren (UPS!, holotype of 

Lecanora tromsoënsis H.Magn.). 

It is highly unlikely that A. subarctica and A. 

tromsoënsis, both rare species, should occur in 

this little island which is not known to have a 

flora of particular distinction. Actually the type 

appears just to be a growthform of the former, 

as shown by Nordin et al. (2007). 

Bacidia luridoglaucella Vain. 

Type: Norway, Sogn og Fjordane, Stadtlandet, 

Ervik, 1903, J. J. Havaas (TUR-V 20822!, 

holotype). 

The description as well as well as the fact that 

Havås recorded some other specimes as 

Bacidina inundata from the same locality 

(Havås 1935), strongly suggested that this is 

just an aberrant form of Bacidina inundata, a 

fact that was confirmed by studies of the type 

(it had already been revised by S. Ekman). 

Bacidia verecundula (Th.Fr.) H.Magn. 

Type: Norway, Finnmark, Bossekop, 1864, Th. 

M. Fries (UPS!, holotype of Bilimbia verecundula 

Th.Fr., Fig. 5). 

This appears to be a well-defined but 

insignificant species, with hardly visible thallus 

and very small apothecia, certainly easily 

overlooked. Thomson (1997) also records it as 

exceedingly rare in Arctic America, also noting 

Figure 5. Bacidia verecundula, part of 

holotype. Bar = 0.5 mm.


it from the High-Arctic. However, these 

records need confirmation. It is highly unlikely 

that this species grows on saxicolous mosses. 

A specimen on Populus from the Mackenzie 

delta in the Northwest Territory, Canada (leg. 

Ahti, H) is according to S. Ekman (pers. 

comm.) not correctly identified. 

B. verecundula has not been recollected in 

the type locality recently. 

Biatora troendelagica Holien & Printzen 

Type: Norway, Sør-Trøndelag, Meldal, Nfacing 

slope of Stavelitjønn, c. 260 m, 1991, H. 

Holien 4785 (TRH!, holotype). 

This is a very inconspicuous, mainly sterile 

lichen, found in an old humid spruce forest. 

Apparently it belongs to the ‘rainforest’ species 

(Holien & Tønsberg 1996), some of which are 

quite rare but usually found in more than one 

locality, and often also in North America. The 

rarity of B. troendelagica is certainly due to its 

insignificant apparence. The collector has even 

been incapable to refind it in the type locality. 

Buellia tesserata Körb. 

Type: Norway, exact locality unknown: ‘an 

Schieferfelsen Norwegens von Hübener & Kurr 

gesammelt’ (L!, holotype, Fig. 6). 

Scheidegger (1993) separated Buellia tesserata 

from Buellia fimbriata (Tuck.) Sheard due to 

the presence of barbatic acid in the type 

specimen, but a renewed study (Rico et al. 

2003) of its chemistry showed that it contains 

3-chlorodivaricatic acid, just as specimens of 

B. fimbriata. The type also exhibits the same 

morphological characters, and is practically 

identical with material from Greece distributed 

by Zahlbruckner in Lich. Rar. 205 (UPS). After 

having seen the type of Buellia fimbriata 

(California, Bolander 116, FH!), we tend to 

agree with Rico et al. (op.cit.) that they are 

conspecific, and B. tesserata is the older name. 

Scheidegger (op.cit.) also had doubts 

concerning the origin of the specimen – a 

matter not further discussed by Rico et al. 

Figure 6. Buellia tesserata, part of holotype. 

Bar = 1 mm. 

(op.cit.). There is, however, little reason to 

believe that some confusion of labels took 

place. Hübener & Kurr travelled in Norway 

1828 for Esslinger Reiseverein (Stafleu & 

Cowan 1979) and are not known to have 

visited Greece or Spain. Hübener & Kurr were 

accompanied to Dovre by the Norwegian 

doctor Wilhelm Boeck, who had a great 

interest in botany (Jørgensen 2007), certainly 

passing through Gudbrandsdalen. As long as 

their itinerary is unknown, the exact location is 

uncertain, but judging from the strongly 

thermophilous disposition of the species 

(Scheidegger 1991) it is most likely situated in 

the upper Gudbrandsdal. There are representatives 

of such elements in the upper parts 

of this valley and its neighbourhood, 

particularly in Vågå (Kleiven 1959), where 

there is a prominent xerophilous element 

present among the lichens (see above). It is, 

however, likely, that Hübener and Kurr started 

their travel in lower Telemark, travelling over 

Kongsberg, where there is also a thermophilous 

element in the flora (cf. the report by 

Wikström, 1831, on the botanical activity in 

Norway at that time), so it cannot be outruled 

that it was here the type was collected.


An analysis of the rock made by 

petrologists at University of Bergen showed 

that the type grew on a micaschist of a type 

often associated with ultrabasic rock, which is 

known from Vågå. Buellia tesserata is 

accordingly an extreme representative of the 

xerophilous element 

Since it is a rather conspicuous species, it 

is, however, surprising that it has not been 

rediscovered in these parts where lichenologists 

have collected frequently. To finally dispel the 

doubts concerning the origin of the specimen a 

rediscovery is urgently needed. 

Another lichen with a most disjunct 

Mediterranean-Norwegian distribution is 

Staurolemma omphalarioides (Jørgensen & 

Henssen 1993), but this species is not quite as 

thermophilous as Buellia tesserata. 

Caloplaca dovrensis (H.Magn.) Degel. 

Type: Norway, Oppland, Hjerkin, alt. 1500 m, 

1948, H. Larsson (UPS!, holotypus of 

Blastenia dovrensis H.Magn.). 

This species of the still very poorly understood 

black-fruited members of the Caloplaca 

ferruginea group was described by Magnusson 

(1950). Magnusson had a limitited material at 

his disposal and based the new species on 

rather subtle characters, such as hymenium 

height, size of verrucae and degree of 

development of a thalline margin. For an 

evaluation of these characters more material is 

needed. The species has also been reported by 

Degelius (1982), but, as he himself pointed out, 

his specimen differs in several characters from 

the type specimen. This shows that there is a 

larger variation than Magnusson was aware of, 

another indication of that the status of this 

species is doubtful. The specimen certainly 

belongs in the difficult Caloplaca concilians 

group which Wunder (1974) characterized as 

being particularly poor in characters. Members 

of this species group have been collected in the 

Dovre region by others, for example by Th. M. 

Fries (who called it Caloplaca ferruginea var. 

melanocarpa). We are for the time being 

inclined to include this species in C. concilians 

s.lat. until the variation of this complex is 

better understood. 

Caloplaca havaasii H.Magn. 

Type: Norway, Granvin, Skålsete, 1938, J. J. 

Havaas (UPS!, lectotype). 

This interesting and characteristic species of 

the Caloplaca marina group has recently been 

thoroughly re-evaluated (Arup 2006) and found 

to be quite distinct. It is surprising that there 

are no known collections from other localities. 

Though the habitat, a “saueheller” (=an 

overhang where the sheep seeks shelter), is 

special, there are several similar ones in 

western Norway. They are, however, not 

favorite localities for lichenologists. It is 

certainly significant that it was the sheep 

farmer Havaas who discovered it. In the 

herbarium he had named it Caloplaca ovinae 

(the Caloplaca of sheep), though Magnusson 

unfortunately changed the epithet when the 

name was published! Accordingly the rarity 

appears to be a result of the special habitat. It is 

still present in the type locality. 

Helocarpon pulverulum (Th.Fr.) Türk & 

Hafellner 

Type: Norway, Sør-Trøndelag, Oppdal, Dovre, 

Kongsvoll, Høgsnyta, 1863, Th. M. Fries 

(UPS!, holotype of Lecidea crassipes f. 

pulverula). 

This species was regarded by Coppins ( 1983) 

as an insignificant variation of Micarea (= 

Helocarpon) crassipes (Th.Fr.) Coppins. 

However, Hafellner & Türk (2001) reported it 

from Austria and re-evaluated its status. 

Though we are in doubt about their taxonomic 

conclusion, their find certainly excludes the 

taxon from the list of possible Norwegian 

endemics.


Ionaspis granvina Havaas ex P.M.Jørg. 

Type: Norway, Granvin, near Baorhaug, alt. 

600 m, 1949, J. J. Havaas in Lich. exs. norv. 

702 (O!, holotype, BG!, C!, H! UPS!, isotypes). 

This is a tiny pioneer species on naked wet 

rocks, difficult to discover and with ephemeral 

occurrence, and therefore certainly mostly 

overlooked and possibly more widespread. It is 

a distinct species, unique in its genus by its 

dark exciple (Jørgensen 1989). It has not been 

recollected in the type-locality in recent years. 

Lecanora dovrensis Hedl. 

Type: Norway, Sør-Trøndelag, Dovre, Drivstuen, 

1864, Th. M. Fries (UPS!, holotype). 

This is a Lecanora s.str. and at present under 

revision by Z. Palice, Pruhonice, who most 

kindly has informed us that it is a taxon related 

to Lecanora mughicola Nyl., the status of 

which he presently is not entirely sure about. 

Lecanora inamoenea Th.Fr. 

Type: Norway, Finnmark, Mortensnes, 1867, 

Th. M. Fries (UPS!, holotype). TLC: traces of 

terpenoids. 

The rich type material is unfortunately sterile 

and its position difficult to decide, also since 

the thallus proved to contain only traces of 

terpenoids, as already pointed out by Poelt 

(1958). Fries recorded lecanorine apothecia 

when describing it, and he placed it close to 

Placodium gypsaceum, which is surprising as 

we find no close resemblance to the genus 

Squamarina. The thallus has an about 30 µm 

thick paraplectenchymatous cortex of thickwalled 

cells (lumina 5 µm wide), brown-pigmented 

in upper part, covered by an epinecral 

layer. It may belong in Lecanora, but more, 

fertile material is needed to decide this. 

Lecanora paupera Th.Fr. 

Type: Norway, vicinity of Tromsø, J. M. 

Norman (type not traced). 

This is a doubtful species with a name of 

obscure nomenclatural status. Fries (1871) only 

mentioned this taxon briefly in a discussion 

(note 5) of L. subfusca, remarking that its rank 

could only be finally settled after more material 

had been discovered. He thus made an 

illegitimate name according to the 

nomenclatural rules, one which may come into 

use when someone later decides the rank. The 

name appears to have been totally forgotten 

until Santesson (1984) took it up as a species in 

his list of lichens of Sweden and Norway. 

However, Santesson does not cite the place of 

publication in direct association with the name, 

only as part of the records of the localities 

(which is repeated in Santesson 1993 and 

Santesson et al. 2004), and he certainly did not 

intend to make a new name as these are listed 

separately (not including this one). We 

therefore conclude that it still is an illegitimate 

name, the rank of which needs to be decided. 

Since no further material is available and the 

type has not been traced, its taxonomic status 

cannot be evaluated. The description 

particularly mentions four-spored asci, a 

feature not observed in any known taxon of this 

group (O. Vitikainen, pers. comm.). The name 

is apparently best forgotten but might be 

revived if material corresponding to the 

description is discovered. 

Lecidea altissima H.Magn. 

Type: Norway, Oppland, Jotunheimen, Lom, 

top of Galdhøpiggen, alt. 2468 m, 1947, G. 

Degelius (UPS!, holotype, Fig. 7). TLC: 

psoromic acid. 

The presence of psoromic acid makes this a 

most characteristic species. It does not belong 

in Lecidea s.str., but rather to the lecidoid 

Lecanoraceae, but the generic situation has not 

been resolved (Hertel & Rambold 1985). It 

belongs as already pointed out by Degelius 

(1968) in the Lecidea elata-group and is allied 

to Lecanora scrobiculata (Th.Fr.) Øvstedal, an 

arctic species, but is clearly different and


Figure 7. Lecidea altissima, part of holotype. 

Bar = 1 mm. 

certainly a distinct species, as already pointed 

out by Magnusson (1931). 

It has not been recollected recently, 

certainly due to the poor accesibility of the type 

locality, but it is likely still to be present there. 

It is an arctic-alpine species, which possibly is 

rare since it prefers high mountains, the top of 

Galdhøpiggen being the highest point in 

Scandinavia. 

Lecidea atrocuprea Vain. 

Type: Norway, Hordaland, Hardangervidda, 

Eggjane, på skarv, alt. c.1250 m, 21.8 1899, J. 

J. Havaas (TUR-V 24389!, holotype). TLC: no 

substances detected. 

Clearly not a Lecidea s.str. The material is 

poorly developed, consisting of a few, rather 

immature apothecia immersed in a thin, reddish 

brown, areolate thallus, which does not contain 

any lichen substances and is also I–. It reminds 

somewhat of Tremolecia atrata in structure, but 

is much thinner and more glossy than usually 

seen in this species. However, the apothecia are 

typical of that species and match that of typical 

material in all details. A further specimen from 

Møre og Romsdal (Havaas 1909, BG) marked 

‘L. atrocuprea forma’ represents an intermediate 

form between the typical Tremolecia atrata and 

‘L. atrocuprea’, so we are in no doubt that the 

latter is just a growthform of the former caused 

by the growth conditions, presumably a windy, 

exposed place (=‘skarv’). 

Lecidea epiploica Norman 

Type: Norway, Troms, Sörreisa, Middagsfjellet, J. 

M. Norman (O!, holotype). TLC: no substances 

detected. 

A most unusual specimen which Norman 

suggested to assign to a subgenus of its own 

(Bolothallina), but this was never formally 

published. It is not a Lecidea s.str. but, 

according to the characters of the apothecia, 

better placed in Calvitimela, one of the 

lecidioid genera of the Lecanoraceae. It falls 

within the variation of the species Haugan & 

Timdal (1994) called Tephromela perlata, as 

the thallus is chalk-like and the spores are 12– 

16 × 6–8 µm, though the partly snail-eaten 

thallus does not contain any lichen acids, and 

was collected at the base of a birch-tree, while 

this species is normally saxicolous and contains 

rangiformic and norrangiformic acids (Haugan 

& Timdal 1994). 

It is therefore rather unfortunate that this is the 

oldest names for that species which has 

recently finally appeared to have got a stabil 

nomenclature. Th. Fries who collected it in 

Dovre, called it Lecidella bullata Körb., but 

misinterpreted Körber’s description which 

refers to a quite different species, as pointed 

out by Magnusson (1931) who introduced the 

illegitimate name Lecidea perlata H.Magn. 

(non Hue 1915). Haugan and Timdal (1994) 

wisely took up this epithet when they placed 

the species in Tephromela, and Santesson et al. 

(2004) transferred their epithet to Calvitimela, 

a later segregate. None of them knew about 

Norman’s older, valid name, and we think it 

would be unwise to change this now, basing it 

on an untypical specimen. To avoid this we 

intend to propose Norman’s name for rejection.


Lecidea hardangeriana H.Magn. 

Type: Norway, Finse, Hardangerjøkelen, alt. 

1250–1300 m, 1925, E. Frey 13606 (UPS! 

holotype). TLC: miriquidic acid. 

The poorly developed specimen shows close 

resemblance to Lecidea subplumbea Anzi 

according to H. Hertel (pers. comm.), a name 

which most probably is a synonym of 

Miriquidica griseoatra, a rather variabel 

species in the poorly understood arctic-alpine 

M. leucophaea complex (see Hertel & 

Rambold 1987). We can confirm that the 

holotype belongs in Miriquidica as it exhibits 

all the characters of that genus as defined by 

Hertel & Rambold (1987). More material is 

necessary to evaluate the taxonomy at species 

level, and we suspect this will prove to fall 

within the variation of a more widespread 

taxon. 

Lecidea ileiformis Fr. 

Type: Norway, Dovre, M. N. Blytt (UPS!, 

holotype). TLC: Atranorin, psoromic and 

stictic acids, zeorin. 

This is a lecidioid member of the Lecanoraceae, 

and although it has a terricolous habitat, we 

regard it as a Calvitimela because of the 

internal characters of the apothecia. The spores 

(9–12 × 4–7 µm) falls within the variation 

given by Haugan & Timdal (1994) for C. 

aglaea, but the chemistry differs. At the 

moment it is best regarded as a further 

chemotype of that species, but this variation is 

in need of further studies 

Lecidea invenusta H.Magn. 

Type: Norway, Granvin, near the top of 

Smøreggen, 1947, J. J. Havaas (UPS!, 

holotype). TLC: miriquidic acid. 

This type is in a rather poor condition and 

much eaten by snails. The remaining thallus 

contains, however, miriqidic acid and the 

specimen certainly belongs in the Miriquidica 

leucophaea complex, just as Lecidea 

hardangeriana. 

Lecidea ludificans H.Magn. 

Type: Norway, Oppland, Jotunheimen, at the 

top of Galdhøpiggen, alt. 2468 m, 1947, G. 

Degelius (UPS!, holotype, Fig. 8). TLC: 

norstictic acid. 

This is a characteristic species with shining 

brown thallus and distinct, thick exciple (to 

about 100 µm) on the large, flat apothecia. It is 

certainly a member of the Lecidea praenubila 

complex, but stands out as most distinct among 

the many closely related, variable species (cf. 

Hertel 1977). 

It has not been recollected recently, 

certainly because of the rather inaccessable 

locality on the top of Scandinavia’s highest 

mountain. It is remarkable that two such rare 

species with arctic-alpine relationships are 

found there (see also L. altissima above), a fact 

which strongly indicates that this high 

mountain was an ice-free nunatak, at least for 

parts of the quarternary glaciation. Curiously 

this has not been one of the peaks included in 

the heated debate among botanists and 

Figure 8. Lecidea ludificans, part of holotype. 

Bar = 2 mm.


geologists on nunataks, probably since it does 

not harbour a particularly interesting flora of 

flowering plants (Jørgensen 1932). A. Nesje 

(pers. comm.) has informed us that 

Galdhøpiggen indeed was a nunatak, and we 

accordingly regard Lecidea altissima and L. 

ludificans as the most likely endemic 

Norwegian lichens, though we cannot outrule 

that they have been overlooked or are 

undetected on other high peaks outside Norway. 

Lecidea mougeotinoides H.Magn. 

Type: Norway, Møre og Romsdal, Synnylven, Geiranger, 

alt. 100 m, 1947, A. H. Magnusson 20805a 

(UPS!, holotype). TLC: no substances detected. 

Most probably an Adelolecia, according to H. 

Hertel (pers. comm.), but certainly distinct 

from A. kolaënsis (Nyl.) Hertel & Rambold, a 

matter needing further study on preferably 

richer material. 

Lecidea sarcodea Nyl. 

Type: Sør-Trøndelag, Dovre, Kindberg (H- 

NYL 21337, holotype, non vidi). 

Unfortunately the type has been mislaid in H 

(O. Vitikainen, pers. comm.) and has accordingly 

not been available for study. Th. M. Fries 

(1871: 428), who had not seen the type, 

suspected that it would hardly prove to be more 

than a variety of Biatora vernalis, differing in 

the plane apothecia and larger spores. Even 

Degelius (1957), who referred one Icelandic 

specimen to Lecidea sarcodea and then studied 

the type, expressed some doubt about its 

taxonomic status. The habitat (alpine heath) 

and the very large spores (18–34 × 7–8 µm) 

rules, however, out that it belongs in Biatora 

vernalis. According to C. Printzen (pers. 

comm.) it might be a Bryonora. Indeed, 

Degelius’ Icelandic material (UPS) proved to 

be a Bryonora. From the ecology and the 

spore-size it is reasonable to conclude that 

Nylander’s name may represent Bryonora 

curvescens, a species that is known to occur in 

the Dovre-region (Högsnyta, 1863, Th. M. 

Fries, UPS) and L. sarcodea would then be a 

synonym of that name. 

Irrespective of its nomenclature, which can 

only be settled conclusively when the type is 

refound, Lecidea sarcodea is certainly not 

resticted to Dovre, but the species has a wide 

arctic-alpine distribution (Holtan-Hartwig 

1991: 301–305). 

Lecidea subapplanata H.Magn. 

Type: Norway, Møre og Romsdal, Grytten, 

Trollstien, alt. 850 m, 1947, A. H. Magnusson 

20721 (UPS!, holotype). TLC: miriquidic acid. 

A rather unusual crustose species which is 

difficult to place. It is certainly not a Lecidea 

s.str. The immersed to sessile, aspicilioid 

apothecia with porpidioid asci, suggest the 

genus Immersaria, but the thallus contains 

miriquidic acid and a closer examination of the 

asci revealed an apical apparatus typical of 

Miriquidica (lacking a distinct central channel). 

It is somewhat similar to Miriquidica 

complanata (Körber) Hertel & Rambold but 

has a brownish red pigment (K+ intensifying) 

in the hypothecium. The material is rather 

scanty, so further collections are necessary to 

resolve the matter fully. 

Lecidea subreagens H.Magn. 

Type: Norway, Troms, Tromsø, Lyngen, 

Mikkelvik, 1915, B. Lynge (O?, not located). 

The identity of this species can only be judged 

when the type is refound, but Magnusson’s 

(1930) rather detailed description indicates that 

it hardly belongs to Lecidea s.str. Magnusson 

compares the thallus to that of L. armeniaca 

and later claims that the relationship is 

uncertain, but that the species appears closest 

to L. (Biatora) cheiloplaca Vain. 

Lecidea tuberculifera H.Magn. 

Type: Norway, Akershus, Aker, Sjådalen, 

1947, A. H. Magnusson (UPS!, holotype). 

TLC: atranorin and zeorin.


This is another of the lecideoid Lecanoraceae 

of the L. elata-group. H. Hertel (pers. comm.) 

regards it as best placed in Lecanora formosa 

(Bagl. & Carestia) Knoph & Leuckert, even 

though the thallus lacks psoromic acid (cf. 

Knoph & Leuckert 2000). This would mean a 

most interesting addition to the relic arcticalpine 

element in the Oslofjord region. Hopefully 

better specimens can be found to confirm 

the identity of the scanty and poorly developed 

material. 

Lepraria bergensis Tønsberg 

Type: Norway, Hordaland, Bergen, Haukeland/ 

Landås, Vognstølen, base of hill Ravneberget, 

2000, T. Tønsberg 2885 (BG!, holotype). 

Recently described species, belonging in the 

difficult L. neglecta complex. Though originally 

only known from one other locality in the 

Bergen region, recent discoveries further south 

in Norway as well as in England and Germany 

(Spribille & Tønsberg 2007) prove that it is a 

more widespread, though rare species. It is still 

extant in the type locality within the city of 

Bergen. 

Metamelanea caesiella (Th.Fr.) Henssen 

Type: Norway, Sør-Trøndelag, Dovre, Drivstuen, 

1864, Th. M. Fries (UPS!, holotype of 

Pyrenopsis caesiella Th.Fr.). 

This must be a truly rare species. It is quite 

distinct and characteristic (Henssen & 

Jørgensen 1990) and not difficult to detect. It 

has actually been collected in a second locality 

in Norway, in Hovedøya near Oslo, and 

distributed by Havaas in his exsiccate (449). It 

has, however, not been recollected in any of 

these localities in recent years. M. caesiella 

appears to belong in a group of xerophilous 

lichens favoured by high summer tempratures. 

It has recently been discovered for the first 

time outside Norway in the Ardennes (leg. P. 

Diederich & van den Boom, M. Schulz pers. 

comm.) and Schwäbische Alpen (Schulz et al. 

2007), which confirms its status as a rare, 

overlooked species. The original spelling of the 

generic name is Metamelanea, and the often 

used form Metamelaena (e.g. in Santesson et 

al. 2004) is incorrect. 

Micarea lynceola (Th.Fr.) Palice 

Type: Norway, Akershus, Christiania (Oslo), 

Tveten, 1868, N.G. Moe 257 (UPS!, holotype 

of Lecidea lynceola). 

This is an exceptionally small lichen which 

requires the eyes of a lynx to be discovered 

(hence the epithet), closely related to M. 

bauschiana. It is also a transient pioneer, so it 

is no wonder that M. lynceola has only been 

collected once in Scandinavia. Palice (1999) 

also reports it from a few localities in Central 

Europe, so it is not endemic to Norway. The 

type-locality itself is engulfed by the city Oslo 

and at present unsuitable as a lichen site. 

Micarea osloënsis (Th.Fr.) Hedl. 

Type: Norway, Oslo, Ryenbjerget, 1847, N. G. 

Moe (UPS!, holotype of Lecidea osloënsis, Fig. 9). 

This tiny lichen, which was collected on soil in 

remnants of a bonfire, is easily confused with 

Figure 9. Micarea osloënsis, part of holotype. 

Bar = 0.5 mm.


Placynthiella uliginosa. This does not, 

however, explain its rarity. Even if the locality 

is now engulfed in the city of Oslo, there 

should be plenty of fireplaces in the region 

where it would be able to grow. It has as yet 

only been found once, but Coppins (1983) in 

his thorough monograph of the genus, accepted 

it as a species, so this is one of the truly rare 

lichens, as yet only known from Norway. 

Pertusaria porospora Norman ex Erichsen 

Type: Norway, Finnmark, Porsanger, Rassebakte, 

in the Lakselv valley, 1871, J. M. 

Norman (O!, holotype). TLC: lecanoric acid 

and xanthones. 

Erichsen’s description of this species is based 

on Normans’s handwritten diagnosis and his 

drawing of the spores (Fig. 10) that are 

attached to the type specimen. Norman 

apparently had a second specimen available 

(‘ad Troldfj., Tanen’), but that has not been 

traced. At present the type lacks asci, so the 

characteristic, large (to 250 µm), thick-walled, 

pored spores drawn and described by Norman 

have not been observed by us. Erichsen (1936) 

placed it close to P. dactylina which is neither 

in accordance with the chemistry nor the 

unusual spore wall. Most probably it is an 

esorediate form of Varicellaria rhodocarpa of 

which Norman collected typical material in the 

same locality, but on a different tree (BG). 

According to Tønsberg (1992) V. rhodocarpa 

lacks soredia in its most reduced states. 

Figure 10. Pertusaria porospora, Norman’s 

drawing of a spore in the type collection. 

Figure 11. Polyblastia sakkobanensis, part 

of holotype. Bar = 0.5 mm. 

Polyblastia sakkobanensis Zschacke 

Type: Norway, Finnmark, Sakkobani, 1917, B. 

Lynge (O!, holotype, Fig. 11). 

A most interesting, easily overlooked species 

with poorly developed thallus. According to 

Savić & Tibell (2007) it is most possibly a 

species of Sporodictyon, closest related to S. 

minutum S.Savić & Tibell. It has not been 

found recently and is in urgent need of 

recollection. 

Polyblastia subocellata Th.Fr. 

Type: Norway, Sør-Trøndelag, Dovre, Kongsvoll, 

1863, Th. M. Fries (UPS!, holotype). 

This is a rather nondescript, terricolous species, 

only known from the small type specimen. 

According to Savić & Tibell (2007) it is 

certainly a Sporodictyon closely related to S. 

terrestris (Th.Fr.) Savić & Tibell, but with a 

thin, whitish, leprose thallus. Since there is a 

great variation in thallus appearance in 

Sporodictyon, its taxonomic status is uncertain. 

It has in vain been searched for recently in the 

type locality by Savić and Tibell.


Figure 12. Polyblastia terrigena, from 

illustration in Rabenhorst Kryptogamenflora. 

Polyblastia terrigena Zschacke 

Type: Norway, Troms, Målselven, J. M. Norman 

(type not located). 

Since the type is missing it is difficult to 

evaluate this taxon. The description is quite 

short, pointing out a close relationship with the 

saxicolous P. verrucosa from which it should 

differ mainly in the form of the involucrellum 

(Fig. 12), a character of little value in our 

opinion. However, according to S. Savić (pers. 

comm.) it might be one of the few examples of 

a terricolous member of the Thelidium-group 

where this character might be of importance. 

The rediscovery of a specimen either in the 

herbarium or in the field is, however, necessary 

to settle the matter. 

Pyrenopsis reducta Th.Fr. 

Type: Norway, Tromsø, Fløjfjellet, 1860, Th. 

M. Fries (UPS!, holotype). 

This small species appears superficially to be a 

poorly developed form of Pyrenopsis 

haematina and it is accordingly mostly 

overlooked or passed by as “immature”. 

However, detailed studies (Jørgensen 2007) 

have shown that it is not even closely related to 

that species, and it was therefore accepted as a 

distinct species. Other material included by 

Santesson et al. (2004) proved to be incorrectly 

identified. It has not been recollected in the 

type locality recently. 

Rinodina malangica (Norman) Arnold 

Type: Norway, Troms, Målselven, J. M. Norman 

(O!, holotype of Rinodina leprosa * 

malangica). 

This is a well-defined, insignificant species 

(see Mayrhofer & Moberg 2002), which is 

easily overlooked, particularly when sterile, 

and since it is very similar to R. colobina. It has 

not been recollected in the type locality 

recently or in any other Scandinavian locality, 

which is quite surprising since there appears to 

be plenty of habitats where it might grow. It is 

quite common in the Alps on Rhododendron 

ferrugineum, a species not found in our region, 

but the type was collected on Alnus. Its rarity in 

our region is hardly real, and it should be 

searched for on subalpine bushes with acidic 

bark. 

Thelidium scotodes (Nyl.) Arnold 

Type: Norway, Troms, Lyngenfjorden, Norrlin 

(H-NYL 2135!, holotype of Verrucaria 

scotodes Nyl.). 

This is an inconspicuous species in the T. 

zwackhii complex, though combining the 

characters (small fruitbodies with basal 

involucrellum and rather large, mainly 3septate 

spores, Fig. 13) in such a way that it 

gives the impression of being a well-defined 

species, the rarity of which may be caused by 

its anonymous appearance. It may be a 

maritime species, which is rare in this genus 

Figure 13. Thelidium scotodes, drawing by 

A. Orange attatched to the type specimen.


(only the clearly different Japanese T. pacifica 

Harada is known to us), though the original 

label does not clearly indicate that it grew on 

the shore, only by the fjord. However, the 

accompanying species indicates a seepage rock 

in the aerohaline zone. It has not been 

recollected in the type locality recently, which 

is urgently needed as it may prove to be an 

unusual, specialized species in its genus. 

Thelidium sordidum Th.Fr. 

Type: Norway, Finnmark, Varanger, Aldsok, 

1868, Th. M. Fries (UPS!, holotype, Fig. 14). 

According to Orange, who revised the type 

specimen, this is probably an overmature 

specimen of a Verrucaria species of the V. 

murorum group, normally with simple spores. 

Since V. murorum is much more southern in 

Scandinavia the identity of the type specimen 

remains obscure. 

Thelidium xyloderma Norman 

Type: Norway, Opland, Land, Aavella, 1880, 

J. M. Norman (S!, holotype). 

The type is a non-lichenized fungus growing on 

lignum covered by an algal sheet. This is 

accordingly no lichen. 

Thrombium ebeneum Norman 

Type: Norway, Vestfold, Larvik, Jordfalden, 

1882, J. M. Norman (UPS!, holotype?). 

This species was established by Norman (1884) 

on the basis of its blackish green pigmentation 

of the fruitbody wall and the 4-spored asci 

(also observed by us), which separates it from 

T. epigaeum, a combination of independent 

characters which normally would indicate an 

autonomous species. Since it, however, has not 

been collected anywhere else, this establishes 

doubt as to whether it was an accidental 

variation of that species. The matter can only 

be conclusively solved when more material is 

discovered, so a search in the region is urgently 

required. There ought to be another specimen 

Figure 14. Thelidium sordidum, drawing by 

A. Orange attatched to the type specimen. 

in a Norwegian herbarium, so we are uncertain 

about the status of the one found in UPS, where 

Norman usually did not place his types. 

Verrucaria atlantica (H.Magn.) 

Type: Norway, Rogaland, Randaberg, 1939, 

A. H. Magnusson 16858 (UPS!, isotype for 

Dermatocarpon atlanticum H.Magn., Fig. 15). 

This interesting species has had a chequered 

nomenclatural history. When describing it 

Magnusson (1949) was obviously unaware of 

the older Dermatocarpon atlanticum Werner. 

Werner (1951) then introduced a new name, 

Dermatocarpon magnussonii. Unaware of that, 

Magnusson (1952) presented another substitute, 

Dermatocarpon litorale. The combination 

into Verrucaria (Santesson et al. 

2004) was fortunately not formally made. As 

seen above, the basionym is illegitimate and 

the species appears not to belong in Verrucaria 

s.str., as understood by Gueidan et al. (2007). 

As pointed out by Breuss (1990), it is closest 

related to ‘Dermatocarpon’ norrlandicum 

H.Magn., a rare and poorly understood species 

only known from its type specimen from 

Lycksele Lappmark, Sweden. A third species 

in this group in our region, Dermatocarpon 

nuoljae H.Magn., is also only known from its 

type (from Torne Lappmark). The whole group 

is in urgent need of recollection and study, as it 

is difficult to evaluate the taxonomy based on 

these three specimens, and the material is too 

old for molecular studies. V. atlantica, though, 

appears to be rather distantly related to the two


Figure 15. Verrucaria atlantica, part of 

isotype. Bar = 2 mm. 

alpine members of the group, and it seems to be 

phytogeographically misplaced, with no close 

relatives in the British Isles. It is accordingly crucial 

that it is searched for in the Stavanger region. The 

holotype in UPS has been mislaid. 

Verrucaria lyngei Servit 

Type: Norway, Finnmark, Kåfjord, Sakkobani, 

1917, B. Lynge (not traced). 

The type has not been possible to trace, but in 

O there are two other specimens labelled (in 

Lynge’s handwriting) Verrucaria lyngei 

Zschacke, collected by Lynge in Voss, Lid in 

1919. It has, however, not been possible to find 

Zschacke’s name published, nor is there any 

indication that Servit just took up an older 

herbarium name. So there is no evidence that 

Servit ever studied these specimens. Since 

Servit published the name after Lynge’s death 

it is impossible that Lynge had any knowledge 

of his name. Accordingly, the identity of this 

species, based only on the description, remains 

unclear, although there is an illustration to 

assist the interpretation. 

Verrucaria magnussoniana Servit 

Type: Norway, Akershus, Asker, Nesön, 1947, 

A. H. Magnusson (not traced). 

Though the type has not been traced there can 

be no doubt that Servit’s name is based on a 

duplicate of the holotype of the next name. 

Servit was evidently unaware of that Magnusson 

himself a few years (1948) before had 

published a name for this, so the name is a 

taxonomic synonym of Verrucaria osloënsis 

(for further comments see below). 

Verrucaria osloënsis H.Magn. 

Type: Norway, Akershus, Asker, S of Nesön 

(Nesøya), Djupalen islet, alt. 2 m, 17.VII.1947, 

A. H. Magnusson 20849 (O!, holotype) 

Magnusson (1948) compared this species with 

Verrucaria thromboides A.Massal., a rare 

lichen described from Italy. It would, however, 

have been closer at hand to check it against the 

related, better known V. macrostoma, which 

was already known from the region. We have 

not found any differences of taxonomic 

importance between the two of them, and 

without having studied the type or the variation 

on a larger scale, we think Magnusson’s 

species should be included in V. macrostoma, 

pending a revision of the whole group. 

Conclusion 

About 50 lichen species are known with 

certainty mainly from their Norwegian type 

specimens. We accept only a few (15) of these 

as distinct species (Table 1), most of which are 

certainly not endemic, except the two Lecidea 

species from the summit of Galdhøpiggen 

mountain. The others belong in difficult, poorly 

understood species complexes and are in need 

of further studies before their true status can be 

decided. Most of them appear to be dubious or 

synonyms of other accepted taxa, or indeed 

names that ought to be applied for more 

widespread species. We therefore suspect that 

the majority of these probable endemics will 

disappear after closer studies of fresh material, 

since it is highly unlikely that Norway has such 

a high number of endemic lichen species.


Table 1. Overview of the status of the treated species. Accepted species in bold. 

Treated species Status 

Acarospora impressula Species concept needs revision 

Acarospora rosulata Well-defined species 

Acarospora verruciformis Species concept needs revision 

Aspicilia alexandri = Aspilidea myrinii 

Aspicilia austronorvegica = Aspilidea myrinii 

Aspicilia lecideoidea Type not located, probably Aspilidea myrinii 

Aspicilia mazarina = Aspicilia aquatica nom. cons. prop. 

Aspicilia nordlandica Well-defined species 

Aspicilia scabrida = Aspicilia epiglypta 

Aspicilia subarctica = Aspicilia zonata 

Aspicilia tromsoënsis = Aspicilia zonata 

Bacidia luridoglaucella = Bacidina inundata 

Bacidia verecundula Well-defined species 

Biatora troendelagica Well-defined species 

Buellia tesserata Well-defined species 

Caloplaca dovrensis More material needed, uncertain 

Caloplaca havaasii Well-defined species 

Helocarpon pulverulum Probably a growthform of H. crassipes 

Ionaspis granvina Well-defined species 

Lecanora dovrensis Uncertain status 

Lecanora inamoenea Uncertain status 

Lecanora paupera Name not applicable to any taxon at present 

Lecidea altissima Well-defined species, not a Lecidea s.str. 

Lecidea atrocuprea = Tremolecia atrata 

Lecidea epiploica = Calvitimela perlata nom. cons. prop. 

Lecidea hardangeriana = Miriquidica leucophaea s.lat. 

Lecidea ileiformis Calvitimela cf. aglaea, more material needed 

Lecidea invenusta = Miriquidica leucophaea s.lat. 

Lecidea ludificans Well-defined species, not a Lecidea s.str. 

Lecidea mougeotinoides Adelolecia sp., more material needed 

Lecidea sarcodea = Bryonora curvescens 

Lecidea subapplanata Miriquidica cf. complanata, more material needed 

Lecidea subreagens Uncertain status, type not located 

Lecidea tuberculifera = Lecanora formosa 

Lepraria bergensis Well-defined species 

Metamelanea caesiella Well-defined species 

Micarea lynceola Well-defined species 

Micarea osloënsis Well-defined species 

Pertusaria porospora ? Varicellaria rhodocarpa abnormally developed 

Polyblastia sakkobanensis A Sporodictyon sp. with uncertain status, more material needed 

Polyblastia subocellata = Sporodictyon cf. terrestris 

Polyblastia terrigena Uncertain status, possibly a Thelidium 

Pyrenopsis reducta Well-defined species 

Rinodina malangica Well-defined species 

Thelidium scotodes ? Well-defined species, more material needed 

Thelidium sordidum A Verrucaria sp. with uncertain status 

Thelidium xyloderma Non-lichenized fungus 

Thrombium ebeneum Uncertain status 

Verrucaria atlantica ? Well-defined species, more material needed, not a Verrucaria 

Verrucaria lyngei Uncertain status, type not located 

Verrucaria magnussoniana = Verrucaria macrostoma 

Verrucaria osloënsis = Verrucaria macrostoma


Acknowledgements 

We are indebted to the cited herbaria for loan 

of material, and particularly to our generous 

colleagues H. Blom, S. Ekman, H. Hertel, R. 

Moberg, A. Orange, Z. Palice, C. Printzen, S. 

Savić, U. Søchting, L. Tibell, E. Timdal, T. 

Tønsberg, and O. Vitikainen for expert advice, 

which has been indespensable for the 

comments to the type specimens. A. Botnen 

provided highly appreciated services in 

herbarium BG and J. Berge and B. Helle kindly 

assisted with some of the illustrations. 

References 

Ahlner, S. 1948. Utbredningstyper bland 

nordiska barrträdslavar. Acta Phytogeographica 

Suecica 22: 1–257. 

Ahlner, S. 1949. Contributions to the lichenflora 

of Norway I. Solorinella asteriscus 

Anzi, new to Scandinavia. Svensk Botanisk 

Tidskrift 43: 157–162. 

Arup, U. 1997. The status of Caloplaca 

havaasii. Graphis Scripta 18: 33–37. 

Breuss, O. 1990. Die Flechtengattung Catapyrenium 

(Verrucariaceae) in Europa. 

Stapfia 23: 1–153. 

Coppins, B. J. 1983. A taxonomic study of the 

lichen genus Micarea in Europe. Bulletin of 

the British Museum (Natural History), 

Botany Series 11(2): 17–214. 

Degelius, G. 1935. Das ozeanische Element der 

Strauch- und Laubflechtenflora von Skandinavien. 

Acta Phytogeographica Suecica 7: 

1–411. 

Degelius, G. 1948. Lichenologiska anteckningar 

från en resa i södra Norge. Botaniska 

Notiser 1948: 137–156. 

Degelius, G. 1956. Om lavfloran i övre 

Setesdal (Syd-Norge). Botaniska Notiser 

109: 349–367. 

Degelius, G. 1957. The epiphytic lichen flora 

of the birch stands in Iceland. Acta Horti 

Gothoburgensis 22(1): 1–51. 

Degelius, G. 1982. The lichen flora of the 

island Vega in northern Nordland, northern 

Norway. Acta Regiae Societatis Scientarum 

et Litterarum Gothoburgensis. Botanica 2: 

1–127. 

Erichsen, C. F. E. 1936. Pertusariaceae. In: 

Rabenhorst: Kryptogamen-Flora, 2 ed., vol. 

9, Abt.V,1: 321–699. 

Fries, Th. M. 1871. Lichenographia Scandinavica 

I. Upsaliae. 

Gueidan, C., Savić, S. Thüs, H., Roux, C., 

Keller, C., Tibell, L., Prieto, M., Heiðmarsson, 

S., Breuss, O., Orange, A., Fröberg, L., 

Amtoft Wynns, A., Navarro-Rosinés, P., 

Krzewicka, B., Pykälä, J. & Lutzoni, F. 

2007. The main genera of Verrucariaceae 

(Ascomycota) as supported by recent 

morphological and molecular studies. In: 

Savić, S., Phylogeny and taxonomy of 

Polyblastia and allied taxa (Verrucariaceae). 

Digital Comprehensive Summaries 

of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty 

of Science and Technology, III. 

Hafellner, J. & Türk, R. 2001. Die lichenisierte 

Pilze Österreichs – eine Checkliste der 

bisher nachgewiesene Arten mit Verbreitungsangaben. 

Stapfia 76: 3–167. 

Haugan, R. & Timdal, E. 1994. Tephromela 

perlata and T. talayana with notes on the 

Tephromela aglaea complex. Graphis 

Scripta 6: 17–26. 

Havaas, J. J. 1909. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der 

westnorwegischen Flechtenflora. Bergens 

Museums Aarbok 1909(1): 1–36. 

Havås, J. J. 1935. Lavvegetationen på Stadlandet. 

Bergens Museums Årbok 1935. 

Naturvidenskapelig rekke 2: 1–43. 

Henssen, A. & Jørgensen, P. M. 1990. New 

combinations and synonyms in the 

Lichinaceae. Lichenologist 22: 137–148. 

Hertel, H. 1977. Gesteinsbewohnende Arten 

der Sammelgattung Lecidea (Lichenes) aus 

Zentral-, Ost und Südasien. Khumbu Himal 

6(3): 145–364. 

Hertel, H. & Rambold, G. 1985. Lecidea sect. 

Armeniacae; lecideoide Arten der Flechtengattungen 

Lecanora und Tephromela 

(Lecanorales). Botanische Jahrbücher für 

Systematik 107(1–4): 469–501.


Hertel, H. & Rambold, G. 1987. Miriquidica 

genus novum Lecanoraceum. Mitteilungen 

Botanischen Staatssammlung München 23: 

378–392. 

Holien, H. & Tønsberg, T. 1996. Boreal regnskog 

i Norge – habitatet for Trøndelagselementets 

lavarter. Blyttia 54: 157–177. 

Holtan-Hartwig, J. 1991. A revision of the 

lichens Bryonora castanea and curvescens. 

Mycotaxon 40: 295–305. 

Hue, A. M. 1910. Lichenes morphologice et 

anatomice disposuit, part 3. Nouvelle 

Archive de la Museum Naturelle. Série 

5(2): 1–120. 

Jonsell, B. 1968. Studies in the Northwest 

European species of Rorippa s.str. 

Symbolae Botanicae Upsalienses 19(2): 1– 

221. 

Jørgensen, P. M. 1989. Notes on the genus 

Ionaspis in Scandinavia. Graphis Scripta 2: 

118–121. 

Jørgensen, P. M. 1996. The oceanic element in 

the Scandinavian lichen flora revisited. 

Symbolae Botanicae Upsalienses 31(3): 

297–317. 

Jørgensen, P. M. (ed.) 2007. Botanikkens 

historie i Norge. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen. 

Jørgensen, P. M. & Henssen, A. 1993. Physma 

omphalarioides – its taxonomic position 

and phytogeography. Graphis Scripta 5: 

12–17. 

Jørgensen, R. 1932. Karplantenes høidegrenser 

i Jotunheimen. Nyt Magazin for Naturvidenskaberne 

72: 1–128. 

Knoph, J.-G. & Leuckert, C. 2000. Chemotaxonomische 

Studien in der Gattung 

Lecidella III. Herzogia 14: 1–26. 

Kleiven, M. 1959. Studies in the xerophilic 

vegetation in northern Gudbrandsdal. Nytt 

Magasin for botanikk 7: 1–60. 

Magnusson, A. H. 1929. Monograph of the 

genus Acarospora. Kungliga Svenska 

Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, Serie 3, 

7(4): 1–400. 

Magnusson, A. H. 1931. Studien über einigen 

Arten der Lecidea armenica und elata- 

Gruppe. Acta Horti Gothoburgensis 6: 93– 

144. 

Magnusson, A. H. 1939. Studies in species of 

Lecanora, mainly the Aspicilia gibbosa 

group. Kungliga svenska Vetenskapsakademiens 

Handlingar, Serie 3, 17(5): 1– 

182. 

Magnusson, A. H. 1948. Some lichens from the 

environs of Oslo. Blyttia 6: 41–48. 

Magnusson, A. H. 1949a. En lavexkursion på 

Norges sydkust. Nyt Magazin for 

Naturvidenskaberne 87: 197–225. 

Magnusson, A. H. 1949b. Some new Norwegian 

lichens. Blyttia 7: 29–35. 

Magnusson, A. H. 1950. On some species of 

Blastenia and Caloplaca with black 

apothecia. Botaniska Notiser 1950: 369– 

386. 

Magnusson, A. H. 1951. New or otherwise 

interesting lichens XV. Botaniska Notiser 

1951: 64–82. 

Nordin, A. & Jørgensen, P. M. 2008. Proposal 

to conserve Aspicilia aquatica against 

Lichen mazarinus (Ascomycota: Pertusariales: 

Megasporaceae). Taxon 57: 989. 

Nordin, A., Tibell, L. & Owe-Larsson, B. 

2007. A preliminary phylogeny of Aspicilia 

in relation to morphological and secondary 

product variation. Bibliotheca Lichenologica 

96: 247–266. 

Norman, J. M. 1884. Nova genera et species 

lichenum florae norvegicae. Öfversigt af 

Kungliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Förhandlingar 

1884(8): 31–42. 

Palice, Z. 1999. New and noteworthy records 

of lichens in the Czech Repuplic. Preslia 

71: 289–336. 

Printzen, C., Etayo, J. & Holien, H. 1998. Two 

new Biatora species from western Norway 

and Madeira. Lichenologist 30: 215–219. 

Purvis, O. W. & James, P. W. 1992. 

Acarospora Massal (1852). In: Purvis, O. 

W., Coppins, B. J., Hawksworth, D. L., 

James, P. W. & Moore, D. (eds), The 

Lichen flora of Great Britain and Ireland. 

Natural History Museum Publications, 

London, pp. 58–63.


Rico, V. J., Calatayud, V. & Giralt, M. 2003. 

Buellia tesserata and Dimelaena radiata, 

two closely related species. Lichenologist 

35: 117–124. 

Santesson, R. 1984. The lichens of Sweden and 

Norway. Stockholm & Uppsala. 

Santesson, R. 1993. The lichens and lichenicolous 

fungi of Sweden and Norway. SBTförlaget, 

Lund. 

Santesson, R., Moberg, R., Nordin, A., Tønsberg, 

T. & Vitikainen, O. 2004. Lichenforming 

and lichenicolous fungi of Fennoscandia. 

Museum of Evolution, Uppsala 

University. 

Savić, S. & Tibell, L. 2007. Taxonomy and 

species delimitation in Sporodictyon 

(Verrucariaceae) in northern Europe and the 

adjacent Arctic. In: Savić, S., Phylogeny 

and taxonomy of Polyblastia and allied 

taxa (Verrucariaceae). Digital 

Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala 

Dissertations from the Faculty of Science 

and Technology 370, II. 

Scheidegger, C. 1991. Phytogeography of the 

genus Buellia (Physciaceae) in Mediterranean 

Europe. Botanica Chronica 10: 

211–220. 

Scheidegger, C. 1993. A revision of European 

saxicolous species of the genus Buellia De 

Not. and formerly included taxa. 

Lichenologist 25: 315–364. 

Schulz, M., Wirth, V. & Feuerer, T. 2007. 

Erstfunde von Flechten und lichenicole 

Pilzen in Deutschland. Herzogia 20: 329– 

334. 

Spribille, T. & Tønsberg, T. 2007. Lepraria 

bergensis and L. obtusatica new to 

Germany. Herzogia 20: 327–328. 

Stafleu, F. & Cowan, R. S. 1979. Taxonomic 

Literature II, H-Le. Regnum Vegetabile 98. 

Thomson, J. W. 1997. American Arctic Lichens 

2. The Microlichens. University of 

Wisconsin Press, Madison. 

Tønsberg, T. 1992. The sorediate and isidiate, 

corticolous, crustose lichens in Norway. 

Sommerfeltia 14: 1–331. 

Tønsberg, T., Gauslaa, Y., Haugan, R., Holien, 

H. & Timdal, E. 1996. The threatened 

macrolichens of Norway – 1995. Sommerfeltia 

23: 1–258. 

Werner, J. L. 1951. Les origines de la flore 

lichenique de la Tunisie d’apres connaissance 

actuelles. Revue bryologie et lichenologie 

30: 300–307. 

Wikström, E. 1831. Årsberetning om framstegen 

uti botanik 1826–1830. Stockholm. 

Wirth, V. 1995. Die Flechten Baden- 

Würtembergs 1. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, 

Stuttgart. 

Wunder, H. 1974. Schwarzfrüchtige, saxicole 

Sippen der Gattung Caloplaca (Lichenes, 

Teloschistaceae) in Mitteleuropa, der 

Mittelmeergebiet und Vorderasien. Bibliotheca 

Lichenologica 3: 1–186.

(2009): Lichens in Scandinavia known mainly from Norwegian type ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?