After the recent molecular findings and subsequent taxon swaps there is a strange situation with Bryoria fuscescens. The taxon now includes former B. fuscescens, B. implexa, B. capillaris, B. subcana. As a result, the“new“ taxon is widespread and quite common in temperate and cool temperate areas of the whole Northern Hemisphere. But for some reason it comes in red list category vulnerable. I suppose, the category was for the former, narrow understanding of the species somewhere in the world. But it is nonsensical now when practically all Bryoria localities are obscured.
Looking at the taxa page, several of the threat assessments (including the global one) are incorrectly linked to other taxa (B. subcana in the case of the global), which is producing the incorrect assessments. NatureServe (the source of the threat assessments) looks like it’s updated properly for the new broader definition of B. fuscescens.
I bet that’s a glitch from the taxonomic change - I’ve not encountered that before but I’ll flag it and see if a curator can fix that linkage issue.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.