Content uploaded by Peter James De Lange
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter James De Lange on Feb 08, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tnzb20
Download by: [Mr Peter De Lange] Date: 07 February 2017, At: 20:10
New Zealand Journal of Botany
ISSN: 0028-825X (Print) 1175-8643 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnzb20
New records of Ramalina (Ramalinaceae,
Ascomycota) for mainland New Zealand
Dan J Blanchon, Peter J de Lange & David J Galloway
To cite this article: Dan J Blanchon, Peter J de Lange & David J Galloway (2015) New records
of Ramalina (Ramalinaceae, Ascomycota) for mainland New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of
Botany, 53:4, 192-201, DOI: 10.1080/0028825X.2015.1050040
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.2015.1050040
Published online: 27 Aug 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 87
View related articles
View Crossmark data
RESEARCH ARTICLE
New records of Ramalina (Ramalinaceae, Ascomycota) for mainland New Zealand
Dan J Blanchon
a
*, Peter J de Lange
b
and David J Galloway
c†
a
Department of Natural Sciences, Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand;
b
Department of
Conservation, Northern Terrestrial Ecosystems Unit, Shared Services, Auckland District Office, Auckland, New
Zealand;
c
Landcare Research, Dunedin, New Zealand
(Received 3 February 2015; accepted 6 May 2015)
Ramalina leiodea and R. luciae are reported from mainland New Zealand for the first time. A revised
key to the Ramalina of the New Zealand Botanical Region is offered to accommodate R. leiodea, the
recently confirmed Kermadec Islands records of R. microspora, and the reinstated R. ovalis.
Keywords: New Zealand mycobiota; Ramalinaceae; Ramalina leiodea;Ramalina luciae; revised key
Introduction
Blanchon et al. (1996a) revised the New Zealand
Ramalina, recognising 16 taxa for the New
Zealand mainland, including three new endemic
species. Two further taxa (R. inflata (Hook. f. &
Taylor) Hook. f. & Taylor and R. luciae Molho,
Bodo, W.L. Culb. & C.F. Culb. (as R. nervulosa
var. luciae (Molho, Bodo, W.L. Culb. & C.F.
Culb.) G.N. Stevens) were only known from
either the subantarctic islands or the Kermadec
Islands. Subsequently, material from northern
New Zealand, Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands pre-
viously referred to as R. arabum (Dill. ex Ach.)
Meyen & Flot. was described as a new species,
R. meridionalis Blanchon & Bannister (2002).
Bannister et al. (2004) accepted 14 taxa for main-
land New Zealand, not recognising R. celastri
subsp. ovalis (Hook. f. & Taylor) G.N. Stevens
or R. erumpens var. norstictica Blanchon, Braggins
& Alison Stewart as distinct entities in New
Zealand. Blanchon & Bannister (2004) later ident-
ified two records previously thought to be
R. fimbriata Krog & Swinscow from the South
Island as R. pollinaria (Westr.) Ach. Accordingly,
Galloway (2007) accepted 17 species for the
New Zealand Botanic Region, including 15
found on the North and South Islands. To this
number, Blanchon et al. (2012) have now con-
firmed and added Ramalina microspora Kremp.
for the Kermadec Islands, and Hayward et al.
(2014) have reinstated R. ovalis Hook. f. &
Taylor for mainland New Zealand. More recently,
de Lange & Blanchon (2015) have treated the
oceanic Kermadec Islands Ramalina. In that
paper they recognised as new to the New
Zealand Botanic Region R. leiodea (Nyl.) Nyl.,
noting that this species had yet to be recorded
from continental New Zealand. This means that
there are now 20 Ramalina species accepted for
the New Zealand Botanical Region.
Here, we report R. leiodea for the first time
from continental New Zealand, based on a 2011
collection made from the Surville Cliffs, North
Cape, Te Paki, North Island (Fig. 1). In addition,
we extend the range of Ramalina luciae from the
Kermadec Islands to the Surville Cliffs, North
Cape, Te Paki, North Island, and also the
Chatham Islands (Fig. 1). The Chatham Islands
© 2015 The Royal Society of New Zealand
*Corresponding author. Email: dblanchon@unitec.ac.nz
†
David J Galloway (1942–2014).
New Zealand Journal of Botany, 2015
Vol. 53, No. 4, 192–201, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.2015.1050040
appear to be the world southern limit for this
otherwise tropical to subtropical species. Further,
because of these changes we include a revised key
to the species of Ramalina currently recognised
for the New Zealand Botanical Region to replace
that offered in Galloway (2007).
Figure 1 New Zealand Archipelago showing the main islands and location of the Kermadec and Chatham Island new
groups, and the new locations from where Ramalina leiodea and R. luciae have been collected.
New records of Ramalina (Ramalinaceae, Ascomycota) for mainland New Zealand 193
Materials and methods
Specimens were examined using standard microscopic
techniques and the descriptions are based on those of
Stevens (1987) and Blanchon et al. (1996a)and
material collected by PdL from the Surville Cliffs
in 2011. Collections of R. leiodea and R. luciae from
the herbarium of the Auckland Museum and Institute
(AK) and Unitec herbarium (UNITEC) were used
for comparison purposes. The major chemical con-
stituents were identified using standardised techniques
of thin-layer chromatography and standards (Culber-
son 1972,White&James1985).
Key to species of Ramalina found in the New Zealand Botanical Region
1. a) Thallus inflated ................................... 2
b) Thallus solid . ................................... 5
2. a) Thallus without soredia; corticolous ......................... 3
b) Thallus sorediate; saxicolous ........................R. fimbriata
3. a) Apothecia concave; apices sparingly branched..................... 4
b) Apothecia convex at maturity, margins occluded; apices highly branched . . R. geniculata
4. a) Thallus slender, somewhat inflated, perforations small and slit-like; containing salazinic
acid......................................R. riparia
b) Thallus broad, highly inflated; without salazinic acid ............. R. inflata
5. a) Thallus sorediate .................................. 6
b) Thallus not sorediate ................................12
6. a) Soredia erupting through lower surface and apices ................... 7
b) Soredia in well-defined soralia ............................ 8
7. a) Variable in form, often with numerous branches, finely branched at the tips, without marginal
splitting to release soredia .........................R. unilateralis
b) Branches few, soft-textured; soredia released by marginal splitting and from lower
surface ..................................R. canariensis
8. a) Branches terete or subterete (older branches somewhat flattened); branching irregular . . 9
b) Branches flat; soralia ellipsoidal or rounded; branching dichotomous ..........10
9. a) Soralia punctiform on minute lateral branches; thallus more than 2 cm tall, medulla UV-, seki-
kaic acid aggregate present ..........................R. peruviana
b) Soralia spreading, often labriform at apices; thallus less than 2 cm tall, medulla UV+ white,
evernic and obtusatic acids present ......................R. pollinaria
10. a) Thalli usually more than 5 cm tall; sparsely branched .................11
b) Thalli usually less than 5 cm tall, often densely branched; soralia with small fibrils at margin
[South Island and Chatham Islands] ......................R. erumpens
11. a) Branches narrow, extreme elongations between di chotomies; sekikaic acid present . R. luciae
b) Branches compressed; soralia with prominent margins; sekikaic acid absent, salazinic +/- pro-
tocetraric acids present .............................R. pacifica
12. a) Branches terete to subterete, narrow .........................13
b) Branches distinctly flattened; broad or narrow .....................16
13. a) Apothecia numerous; terminal or subterminal .....................14
b) Apothecia laminal, marginal or absent ........................15
14. a) Saxicolous, branching dense and entangled; pseudocyphellae absent; divaricatic acid
present ...........................R. microspora (narrow form)
b) Corticolous; branching mainly from base, pseudocyphellae linear; divaricatic acid
absent....................................R. exiguella
194 DJ Blanchon et al.
15. a) Thallus more densely branched at base, apical branches often twisted and somewhat nodular;
medulla K+ red (norstictic acid) ......................R. meridionalis
b) Thallus more densely branched at apices, many secondary branches at right angles to main
branches; medulla K- .......................... R. australiensis
16. a) Apothecia terminal or subterminal ..........................17
b) Apothecia laminal or marginal ............................19
17. a) Thallus caespitose; saxicolous; apothecia terminal .......R. microspora (broad form)
b) Thallus erect or subpendulous; corticolous; apothecia terminal or subterminal ....... 18
18. a) Branches flat, often canaliculate, with prominent marginal and laminal pseudocyphellae;
apothecia concave with pseudocyphellae on exciple; sekikaic acid absent .....R. inflexa
b) Branches never canaliculate, sometimes terete and appearing slightly inflated, pseudocyphel-
lae rare; apothecia concave to plane, without pseudocyphellae on exciple; sekikaic +/- divaricatic
acid present ................................R. glaucescens
19. a) Branching sparse, thallus of one or a few branches only, apothecia laminal only, no medullary
chemistry ....................................R. ovalis
b) Thallus of multiple branches, apothecia marginal (occasionally laminal) ........20
20. a) Branches canaliculate; apothecia concave to plane; boninic acid present . . . R. leiodea
b) Branches flattened; apothecia plane to convex; boninic acid absent . . . . . R. celastri
New records for mainland New Zealand
Ramalina leiodea (Nyl.) Nyl., Lich. Nov. Zel. 22
(1888).
Lectotypus. New Caledonia, ‘Donne par le Musee
Colonial’,Deplanche s.n., 1861, PC.
Description (Fig. 2). Thallus corticolous, grey-
green, erect to subpendulous, 35–55 mm long;
branching dichotomous to subdichotomous;
branch width (1.0–)2.0–4.0(–5.0) mm, branches
flattened or canaliculate when narrow, apices
attenuate; surface matt, smooth to rugose, short
linear pseudocyphellae present; holdfast delimited;
soralia absent. Apothecia common, marginal and
subterminal, rarely laminal, shortly stalked; disc
1–2.5 mm in diameter, concave to plane; margin
entire or incised at maturity; ascospores oval, ellip-
soid, straight, or slightly curved, 12.0–17.5(–20) ×
5.0–6.5 µm. Chemistry: Boninic acid (major), 2-0-
methylsekikaic acid (minor), 2,4′-di-0-methylnor-
sekikaic acid (minor), 4′-0-methylpaludosic acid
(minor), 4,4′-di-0-methylcryptochlorophaic acid
(minor), and usnic acid. Medulla K–.
Specimen examined
Northland: Te Paki, North Cape Scientific Reserve,
Surville Cliffs, ‘Different Bush’, 34°23′40″S, 173°
00′29″E, 160 m alt., on Metrosideros excelsa trunk
in karaka-pōhutukawa-houpara forest, P.J. de
Lange 12289 & M.A.M. Renner, 23 Sep 2011
(AK 328039; UNITEC 6919).
Recognition
Ramalina leiodea resembles R. celastri (Spreng.)
Krog & Swinscow, but is distinguished from this
and other species by the dichotomous to subdicho-
tomous branching, canaliculate branches, shortly
stalked concave to plane apothecia, the lack of
soralia and the presence of boninic acid in the
medulla (Fig. 2).
Remarks
Outside continental New Zealand R. leiodea is usually
found in similar sites and on the same hosts as
R. luciae. On Rarotonga, it is locally abundant, particu-
larly along the island’s ring plain and coastal area, but
it is found up to 500 m above sea level (a.s.l.) (Blan-
chon & de Lange 2011), where it is found on tree
species such as mato (Homalium acuminatum), pua
(Fagraea berteroana)andrātā(Metrosideros collina
agg.). On the Kermadec Islands R. leiodea is not
common, being found only on the Herald Islets and
Macauley Island, where it has been collected from
New records of Ramalina (Ramalinaceae, Ascomycota) for mainland New Zealand 195
Kermadec ngaio (Myoporum rapense subsp. kerma-
decense) tree land. Ramalina leiodea is also known
from the Bonin Islands, Marianas Islands, Mauritius,
Reunion, Australia, Lord Howe Island, Norfolk Island,
the Kermadec Islands, New Caledonia, Vanuatu and
the Hawaiian Islands (Stevens 1987;deLange&Blan-
chon 2015).
On the Surville Cliffs Ramalina leiodea was
found in one site growing abundantly on the trunk
of a shaded pōhutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa)in
a dense, tangled forest remnant (informally known
as ‘Different Bush’[Fig. 3]) of karaka (Corynocar-
pus laevigatus)/pōhutukawa and an unnamed race
of houpara (Pseudopanax aff. lessonii). In the
field this species was confused with the superfi-
cially similar R.celastri, which is abundant at
North Cape, so no more detailed notes about its
association were made, beyond that it was collected
with R. luciae (see below), which was also confused
with the superficially similar R. pacifica.
Conservation status
Ramalina leiodea as a new record for the New
Zealand Botanical Region was not included in
the last conservation assessment of New Zealand’s
lichenised mycobiota (de Lange et al. 2012). As an
interim measure, until a revision of the last conser-
vation listing is prepared we offer a conservation
assessment. Ramalina leiodea is now known from
three collections, two from the Kermadec Islands
group (a Nature Reserve) and one from the Surville
Cliffs (a Scientific Reserve). We are reasonably con-
fident it is not present in other New Zealand herbar-
ium holdings of Ramalina due to their extensive use
by Bannister et al. (2004) and for the reinstatement of
R. ovalis by Hayward et al. (2014). While an assess-
ment of Data Deficient seems appropriate, using the
New Zealand Threat Classification System (Town-
send et al. 2008) we believe there is sufficient
information to provisionally assess this species as
At Risk/Naturally Uncommon qualified DP (Data
Figure 2 Growth form of Ramalina leiodea (Surville Cliffs, PJ de Lange 12289 & MAM Renner, UNITEC 6919).
Scale bar = 1 cm.
196 DJ Blanchon et al.
Figure 3 Te Paki, North Cape Scientific Reserve, Surville Cliffs; top image showing topography of the Surville Cliffs
looking east towards ‘Different Bush’(the area marked ‘A’), and lower image showing the interior of ‘Different Bush’
from the site marked ‘A’above, which is the location where both Ramalina leiodea and R. luciae were collected. In
this image can be seen the three dominant vascular plants of this forest remnant, pōhutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa),
karaka (Corynocarpus laevigatus) and houpara (Pseudopanax aff. lessonii), along with smaller shrubs of māpou
(Myrsine australis).
New records of Ramalina (Ramalinaceae, Ascomycota) for mainland New Zealand 197
Poor), SO (Secure Overseas), Sp (Sparse) because it
was recorded as locally common at the sites where it
was collected on the Kermadec Islands and Surville
Cliffs. The qualifiers reflect our lack of trend and
population data as well as reflecting the likelihood
that further populations may yet be found; that
this species is abundant outside the New Zealand
Botanic Region, and that indications are that it is
biologically sparse.
Ramalina luciae Molho, Bodo, W.L.Culb. & C.
F. Culb., Bryologist 84, 396 (1981)
Holotypus. Fiji, Kambara (= Kabara) Island, bark
of citrus, Salvat B.358a.
Description (Fig. 4).Thallus corticolous, pale
green, subpendulous to pendulous, 44–75 mm
long; branching dichotomous, elongation between
branching; branch width 0.5–1.0 mm, branches
flattened at base and subterete at apices, slightly
twisted along the whole length, growth form
tangled due to fusion of branches; cortex matt;
pseudocyphellae present, linear, inconspicuous;
soralia marginal and laminal, round to ellipsoid or
elongate, often with distinct rim. Apothecia not
seen in New Zealand material. Chemistry: Usnic
acid, sekikaic acid (major), 4′-O-demethylsekikaic
acid (minor), 4′-O-methylnorsekikaic acid (minor)
and ramalinolic acid (trace). Medulla K+ pink.
Specimens examined
Northland: Te Paki, North Cape Scientific Reserve,
Surville Cliffs, ‘Different Bush’,34°23′40″S, 173°
00′29″E, 160 m alt., on Metrosideros excelsa
trunk in karaka-pōhutukawa-houpara forest, P. J .
de Lange 12290 & M.A.M. Renner,23Sep2011
(UNITEC 6918). Chatham Islands: Rangiauria
(Pitt Island), Waipaua Scenic Reserve, PJ de
Lange CH1798 & PB Heenan, 30 May 2008 (AK
303634).
Recognition
Ramalina luciae resembles R. pacifica Asahina.,
but can be distinguished by its elongated branches
(Fig. 4) and distinctive medullary chemistry (seki-
kaic acid rather than salazinic acid). Ramalina per-
uviana Ach. has a somewhat similar chemistry
Figure 4 Growth form of Ramalina luciae (Surville Cliffs, PJ de Lange 12290 & MAM Renner, UNITEC 6918).
Scale bar = 1 cm.
198 DJ Blanchon et al.
(with the addition of homosekikaic acid as a major
component), but the branching is more irregular in
this species; the branches tend to be narrower and
the soralia are punctiform rather than rounded to
ellipsoid.
Remarks
Ramalina luciae was originally described from
material collected in Fiji (Molho et al. 1981), but
has since been recorded from the Cook Islands,
Australia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia (Sulawesi),
Kenya, Vanuatu, Tahiti (Stevens 1983,1987), the
Kermadec Islands (Blanchon et al. 1996a;de
Lange & Blanchon 2015) and Niue (Blanchon
et al. 1996b). On the Cook Islands (Rarotonga),
this species is common from the coast to the
summit of the main range (663 m a.s.l.) and is
found on the trunks and branches of a range of
phorophyte species including Polyscias scutel-
laria,Hibiscus schizopetalus and H. rosa-sinensis.
It is frequently found with R. leiodea on the trunks
of coconut (Cocos nucifera) palms (Blanchon & de
Lange 2011).
On the oceanic Kermadec Islands Ramalina
luciae is not especially common and is so far
known only from Raoul Island, the largest and
only densely forested island of the group (de
Lange & Blanchon 2015).
In New Zealand, on the Surville Cliffs, North
Cape, North Island, Ramalina luciae was collected
from ‘Different Bush’(Fig. 3) in September 2011
(initially as R. pacifica) from the same location as
R. leiodea (see above). At the time of collection
the lichen was regarded as common, and recorded
as associating with Ramalina celastri (actually R.
leiodea).
On the Chatham Islands Ramalina luciae has
been collected once from Rangiauria (Pitt Island)
growing admixed with R. peruviana on the trunk
of an emergent akeake (Olearia traversiorum) tree.
Conservation status
Ramalina luciae reaches its world southern limit in
the New Zealand Botanical Region and has evidently
always been scarce here (Blanchon et al. 1996a).
The species was assessed as At Risk/Naturally
Uncommon qualified SO (Secure Overseas) and
Sp (Sparse) by de Lange et al. (2012). That
decision was based on the knowledge that it was
present in the northern Kermadec Islands and the
Chatham Islands group, and the belief that it was
common on the Kermadec Islands. Since then de
Lange & Blanchon (2015) noted that the species
was known from only five collections made
between 1956 and 1993. Notably it was not present
in the 2009 and 2011 collections of Ramalina from
theKermadecs,reportedoninthatpaper.Ramalina
species are generally photophilous, and in this
respect de Lange & Blanchon (2015)hadnoted
their decline from Raoul Island (the largest island in
the Kermadec Islands group), which they attributed
to the forest ‘thickening’up following the eradication
of feral goats, pigs, cats and rats (de Lange & Gallo-
way 2015). While subsequent cyclonic damage to
those islands in March 2011 and June 2012 is likely
to have opened up the vegetation, presumably
encouraging the expansion of Ramalina species, we
have no collections or data to support this speculation.
Similarly, the species is still only known from a single
collection from Rangiauria (Pitt Island) in the
Chatham Islands, despite further lichen-collecting
elsewhere from that island group in 2008 and 2014.
It is evidently scarce on the Chatham Islands group.
Whilst the Surville Cliffs collection came from an
area where this species was recorded as common, it
was initially collected as R. pacifica,whichis
present on the Surville Cliffs and is common there,
so under these circumstances we feel that we
cannot accurately determine this species’abundance
from the field notes made for that collection in
2011. As such, based on herbarium evidence and
field work on the Kermadec Islands, we suggest
that Ramalina luciae is not only very uncommon in
the New Zealand Botanical Region but also in
decline. The question is whether this decline is
human induced or merely a natural state reflecting a
historical artificial abundance from which this
species is now returning to its natural condition. In
the absence of population size and trend data, and
what we know of this species’ecology, we believe
that the decline is natural and, as such, this species
still merits the current conservation status of At
New records of Ramalina (Ramalinaceae, Ascomycota) for mainland New Zealand 199
Risk/Naturally Uncommon SO, Sp but with the
addition of DP to reflect our lack of population and
trend data.
Discussion
The presence of two conventionally tropical
(Stevens 1987)Ramalina in the far north of New
Zealand (Te Paki) and the Chatham Islands has par-
allels with the distribution of a range of bryophytes
also typical of tropical situations and either recorded
solely from or shared between these two regions
(e.g. Calymperes tenerum,Cheilolejeunea trifaria,
Ectropothecium sandiwichense,Lejeunea aniso-
phylla,Radula javanica and Syrrhopodon armatus;
Fife & de Lange 2009;deLange&Fife2010;Fife
2014). As with Fife & de Lange (2009) we conclude
that the most likely explanation for this peculiar
northern New Zealand–Chatham disjunction is not
lack of collection but rather reflects sea bird move-
ments between the tropical south Pacific Islands,
the warm temperate North Island of New Zealand
and the Chatham Islands.
Whilst it could be argued that, from a lichen
perspective, large portions of New Zealand are
still under-collected, we would argue that Rama-
lina is not poorly collected (see Bannister et al.
2004). The genus is one of the few New Zealand
lichen genera readily recognised or collected by
the public, and so is well represented in New
Zealand herbaria (Bannister et al. 2004). Signifi-
cantly, the only recent additions to New Zealand
Ramalina have come about either through taxo-
nomic revision of R. celastri (Hayward et al.
2014), or through the deliberate collection of this
genus from those less accessible remote parts of
the archipelago (e.g. the Kermadec and Chatham
Island groups [de Lange & Blanchon 2015;PJde
Lange, DOC, unpubl. data]).
It is notable that both species were collected
from sites that are, or have until recently, been fre-
quented by a range of ground-burrowing Pterodro-
mid petrels, and in close association with many of
the tropical bryophytes noted above, especially
Calymperes tenerum and Syrrhopodon armatus.
Because petrels nesting in dense forest routinely
clamber up and down trees to access the open
sky or their burrows they are likely to become
coated in bryophyte and fungal spores, gemmae
and other asexual propagules. Whilst most of
these are likely to be washed off during their fora-
ging for food, some must persist, allowing estab-
lishment of new populations in those places
frequented by nesting sea birds. This was the con-
clusion reached by Fife & de Lange (2009), and is
an aspect of biota dispersal that we feel is well
worth further study.
Acknowledgements
We thank JR Rolfe for his comments on the conservation
assessments, and for providing Fig. 1. Peter de Lange
would like to thank Ngāti Kuri for permission to
collect specimens from North Cape, and the assistance
of the staff of the Chatham Islands Area office during
his visit to those islands.
Associate Editor: Dr Eric McKenzie.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
References
Bannister P, Bannister JM, Blanchon DJ 2004.
Distribution, habitat, and relation to climatic
factors of the lichen genus Ramalina in New
Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany 42: 121–
138.
Blanchon DJ, Bannister JM 2002. Ramalina meridiona-
lis, a new species from New Zealand, Norfolk Island
and Lord Howe Island. Australasian Lichenology 51:
17–19.
Blanchon DJ, Bannister JM 2004. Ramalina pollinaria
(Westr.) Ach. in New Zealand. Australasian
Lichenology 55: 18–20.
Blanchon DJ, Braggins JE, Stewart A 1996a. The lichen
genus Ramalina in New Zealand. Journal of the
Hattori Botanical Laboratory 79: 43–98.
Blanchon DJ, de Lange PJ 2011. New records of
Ramalina (Ramalinaceae, Ascomycota) from the
Cook Islands, South Pacific Ocean. Australasian
Lichenology 69: 4–10.
Blanchon DJ, de Lange PJ, Bannister JM 2012.
Confirmation of Ramalina microspora Kremp.
(Ramalinaceae: Ascomycota) for the Kermadec
Islands. Australasian Lichenology 70: 30–35.
Culberson CF 1972. Improved conditions and new data
for identification of lichen products by standardized
200 DJ Blanchon et al.
thin-layer chromatographic method. Journal of
Chromatography 72: 113–125.
Fife AJ 2014. Calymperaceae. In: Heenan PB, Breitwieser I,
Wilton AD eds. Flora of New Zealand—Mosses.
Fascicle 12. Lincoln, Manaaki Whenua Press. http://
dx.doi.org/10.7931/J25Q4T1F (accessed 9 January
2015).
Fife AJ, de Lange PJ 2009. Calymperes tenerum Mull.
Hal. (Calymperaceae) on the Chatham Islands.
Australasian Bryological Newsletter 57: 14–16.
Galloway DJ 2007. Flora of New Zealand Lichens.
Revised second edition including Lichen-Forming
and Lichenicolous Fungi. Lincoln, Manaaki Whenua
Press. 2261 p.
Hayward GC, Blanchon DJ, Lumbsch HT 2014.
Molecular data support Ramalina ovalis as a dis-
tinct lineage (Ramalinaceae, Ascomycota). The
Lichenologist 46: 553–561.
de Lange PJ, Blanchon DJ 2015. Lichen notes from the
Kermadec Islands Group. II. Ramalina. Bulletin
of the Auckland War Memorial Museum 20: 159–
170.
de Lange PJ, Fife AJ 2010. Calymperes tenerum in
northern New Zealand. Australasian Bryological
Newsletter 58: 8.
de Lange PJ, Galloway DJ 2015. Lichen notes from Raoul
Island, Kermadecs Islands group. I. Lobariaceae.
Bulletin of the Auckland War Memorial Museum
20: 129–158.
de Lange PJ, Galloway DJ, Blanchon DJ, Knight A,
Rolfe JR, Crowcroft GM, Hitchmough R 2012.
Conservation status of New Zealand lichens. New
Zealand Journal of Botany 50: 303–363.
Molho D, Bodo B, Culberson WL, Culberson CF 1981.
A chemically distinctive new Ramalina from Fiji.
The Bryologist 84: 396–398.
Stevens GN 1983. Tropical-subtropical Ramalinae in the
Ramalina farinacea complex. The Lichenologist
15: 213–229.
Stevens GN 1987. The lichen genus Ramalina in
Australia. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural
History), Botany Series 16: 107–223.
Townsend AJ, de Lange PJ, Norton DA, Molloy J,
Miskelly C, Duffy C 2008. The New Zealand
threat classification system manual. Wellington,
Department of Conservation. 35 p.
White FJ, James PW 1985. A new guide to microche-
mical techniques for the identification of lichen
substances. British Lichen Society Bulletin 57:
1–40.
New records of Ramalina (Ramalinaceae, Ascomycota) for mainland New Zealand 201
