The Society | British Lichens | Identification | Publications | Projects | Recording & Mapping | Churchyards
Home | Contact | Membership | Links | Site Map
Compiled by Brian Coppins, with help from many colleagues.
The original intention of this synonym list was to supplement the Flora (Purvis et al. 1992), by filling the gap of listed synonyms between the Checklists of Hawksworth et al. (1980) and Cannon et al. (1984) and the Flora [and more latterly the Checklist of Coppins (2002)], and documenting any subsequent changes. It was not intended to duplicate the synonyms given in the aforementioned checklists, except where there had been subsequent changes in interpretation. However, by ‘popular demand’ the list has been extended to include many earlier synonymies, especially those appearing in publications subsequent to the second edition of Smith’s monograph (Smith 1918, 1926). The List now includes all lichenicolous fungi, greatly aided by David Hawksworth's checklist (Hawksworth 2003). The compilation as provided here is certainly not comprehensive and will be added to and amended as appropriate. Similarly, the List is unlikely to be devoid of mistakes, especially with regard to author citations!
The list includes not only synonyms in the strict sense, but also many misinterpretations and misapplications of names, and names of uncertain application. The mis-uses included are mainly those that have appeared in the published literature, but a few additional ones that are commonly met with in the study of herbarium material are also included. The study of herbarium material reveals many additional misidentifications, but it is unrealistic to account for all such eventualities.
In the strict sense, synonyms are of two types:
If the updating of species lists was just a matter of converting old names to currently accepted names by their nomenclatural and taxonomic synonyms, the process could be done simply and mechanically. Unfortunately life is not so simple!
As a simple example, the type specimen of Lecidea prasinula has been shown to belong to Lecidella scabra. On the grounds of straight synonymy Lecidea prasinula and its nomenclatural synonym Lecidella prasinula are synonyms of Lecidella scabra. However, ‘prasinula’ had been used for decades for a different species, i.e. what we now call Lecidella meiococca. Most collections of prasinula, apart from the type collection, belong to L. meiococca. Hence:
Many names have been partly misapplied because a broad concept was previously attributed to them. As examples, the ‘old’ Peltigera canina is now considered to comprise two species: P. canina and P. membranacea. The ‘old’ Peltigera polydactyla now comprises three species: P. polydactyla, P. hymenina and P. neckeri. The ‘old’ Physcia grisea now comprises Physconia grisea, P. enteroxantha and P. perisidiosa. The ‘old’ Peltigera aphthosa now comprises P. britannica and P. leucophlebia; there is a also a ‘true’ P. aphthosa, but that species has not been correctly reported from the British Isles.
How to interpret the
outcome of such splits is best accomplished by the re-determination of
voucher specimens, where such exist. Where they do not exist, some
intelligent guesswork can be made by considerations of the location, habitat
and date of the record in relation to the known distribution, ecology,
taxonomy and nomenclatural history of the species concerned. For example, a
record of Peltigera canina made prior to about 1982, and from mossy
tree bases in woodland, or mossy siliceous boulders, or acid grassland or
dunes, is almost certainly to be P. membranacea, which is also the
much commoner of the two species. Similarly, a record of Peltigera
'polydactyla' from grassland in southern England is most likely to be P. hymenina, as P. polydactlyon is so far not known to
occur in that region, whereas P. hymenina is widely distributed
there. This does not always work, because if the record was on mossy rocks
in the Pennines or Scotland, you may as well toss a coin!
The Synonym List tries to take account of such things, and can doubtless be much improved in this respect. However, the List can deal only with the more common and important misapplication of names - it cannot take account of every misidentification to be found in the literature or the major herbaria! The misapplications listed are also restricted to those made in the British Isles.
Author names and their abbreviations follow ‘Authors of Fungal Names’ by Kirk & Ansell which is available [here]
NB: The list of species “incorrectly reported from British Isles” is not complete - see the latest published checklist (Coppins 2002) for others.
NB: The Syn List is mostly compatible with the Checklist found on this web site, but as the two may not necessarily be updated at the same time, the user may find one or two discrepancies. Nevertheless, do not be afraid to report them (see below).
NB: The Syn List does not yet deal fully with lichenicolous fungi, but it will be updated to do so in the future.
Studies in the taxonomy and nomenclature of lichens continue, and name changes are inevitable. Furthermore, detailed studies of historical collections give us a better understanding of the past uses (and abuses) of names by different authors and over different periods of time. Please send any relevant information pertaining to the Syn List, including suggested additions and corrections, and any other comments as to how you think the List can be improved to B.Coppins@rbge.org.uk