Graphis submarginata Lücking (2008: 112)

Kalb, Jutarat, Lücking, Robert & Kalb, Klaus, 2018, The lichen genera Allographa and Graphis (Ascomycota: Ostropales, Graphidaceae) in Thailand-eleven new species, forty-seven new records and a key to all one hundred and fifteen species so far recorded for the country, Phytotaxa 377 (1), pp. 448-450 : 448-450

* Graphis submarginata Lücking (2008: 112) . Fig. 8B .

Graphis marginata Meyen & Flot. in Zahlbruckner, Catal. Lich. Univ. 2: 317 (1923) [nom. illeg., ICN Art. 53; non G. marginata Raddi ]; G. lineola var. marginata (Meyen & Flot.) Zahlbruckner, Catal. Lich. Univ. 2: 317 (1923) [nom. illeg., ICN Art. 52].

Type:— PARAGUAY. Asuncion, in arbore solitaria, 27 August 1893, Malme 1664 Bg ( S!, lectotype, here designated) .

Thallus corticolous, off-white gray,, continuous, smooth, corticate, dull. Lirellae erumpent, with a lateral thalline margin, short to elongate, up to 3 mm long, straight, curved or rarely sinuous, simple or rarely trifurcately branched, labia dinvergent, entire, disc slightly opened, whitish pruinose, ( scripta -morph). Exciple laterally carbonized; hymenium inspersed (type A); ascospores 8/ascus, hyaline, transversely 8 (–9)-septate, 24–39 × 7–8 μm.

Chemistry: no lichen substances by TLC (anal. J. Sutjaritturakan).

Distribution and habitat:—Pantropical ( Lücking et al. 2009), reported from Costa Rica ( Lücking et al. 2008), Brazil ( Leite et al. 2015), Paraguay (type locality) and here from Thailand for the first time for this country and the palaeotropics.

Remarks:—This taxon has a complicated nomenclatural history. The original material was initially identified as G. marginata Raddi by Meyen & Flotow (1843), an unrelated species. Later, Zahlbruckner (1923) found that the material represented a different species and erroneously attributed the name G. marginata to Meyen & Flotow [non G. marginata Raddi ], recombining it as variety into G. lineola var. marginata . At the same time, he cited G. comma var. rosella Müll. Arg. ( Müller 1883) as synonym. Since the name G. marginata Meyen & Flot. does not date back to 1843 but was published by Zahlbruckner (1923), it does not have priority over G. comma var. rosella , and when reducing the name marginata Meyen & Flot. to the rank of variety, Zahlbruckner (1923) should have adopted Müller’s name for the taxon. Hence, both the name G. marginata Meyen & Flot. in Zahlbruckner (1923) and its combination as G. lineola var. marginata (Meyen & Flot.) Zahlbr. are illegitimate. Redinger (1935) adopted Zahlbruckner’s infraspecific combination, explicitly excluding G. comma var. rosella from synonymy, but the infraspecific name remains illegitimate in this combination and the epithet cannot be used at the species level in Graphis as it is blocked by G. marginata Raddi. Hence , the replacement name G. submarginata Lücking applies, albeit the type citation was erroneous in Lücking et al. (2008, 2009) and is here corrected.

Material from Thailand examined:— Prachuap Khiri Khan province: Bang Saphan Noi district, in the area of Kho po bus station, in a black afra plantation ( Terminalia ivoriensis ), 45 m, 11°04’19’’ N, 99°22’24’’ E, 21 May 2011, J. Sutjaritturakan 3856, (hb. K. & J. Kalb 42454) .

Figures

FIGURE 8. A. Graphis sublitoralis (scale = 0.5 mm); B. Graphis submarginata (scale = 0.4 mm); C. Graphis subschroederi (scale = 0.4); D. Graphis sundarbanensis (scale = 0.4); E. Graphis tenuirima (scale = 0.4 mm); F. Graphis urandrae (scale = 0.5 mm).