I understand that lichens, as a group, are more difficult to learn than birds or butterflies. I’m OK with that. But I am frustrated by the seeming lack of good starter material. I am putting out this journal entry to record the vicissitudes of a beginner. Presumably I will look back and laugh at my naiveté in a few years’ time. Keep in mind that, while I hope I am “smarter than the average bear,” I am no biologist in any sense of formal training and/or understanding.
The Taxonomy – Lichens can’t be definitely separated from other fungi? No way to check iNaturalist to see what species of lichen have been seen in an area without checking all the fungi, for instance? If lichens are distinct from fungi by nature of the symbiosis with algae, why isn’t that reflected taxonomically? The fact that the foliose/fruticose/crustose distinction doesn’t appear to follow/reflect taxonomic categories really confuses me, too.
Resources – As a birder, I am spoiled by the amazing range of field guides we have, and their depth of detail in both descriptions and illustrations. With the lichen materials I have used so far, I find that the descriptions are shot through with specialized vocabulary that creates a steep learning curve, if not becoming downright tautological/autological and circular. Photographs don’t describe relative size, or give relevant size comparisons. Range maps would help, too (I see a citizen-science opening here, for more lichen observers to be widespread and recording everything they can find, state-by-state, county-by-county, habitat-by-habitat).
Taxonomy + Resources – I have no doubt that Stephen Sharnoff’s California Lichens is an excellent guide. But it is frustrating for me as a beginner. Putting the species in alphabetical order within the f/f/c framework only made the taxonomy more opaque for me. No diagrams on lichen parts, no schematics. The photos are beautiful, but with little sense of scale or size. Range descriptions are vague. He’ll describe a lichen that I think is matching with what I am looking at, then list three simialr species that he hasn’t illustrated. Aarrgghh!
What might help? - I am reminded of how, before Roger Tory Peterson’s breakthrough, bird descriptions had to be ordered according to a template. This meant you might not learn about the American Robin having a red breast until 2/3 of the way through a description! I feel something similar is happening with lichens (again, hedging caution around my naiveté). It seems to me that the way to build ID knowledge in most taxa is going from the coarsest to the finest level on three fronts simultaneously: visuals, range/habitat and likely species of confusion. Perhaps crustose:lichens::empidonax:birds::skippers:butterflies. But there are still some categories (like Caloplaca) that can be taught and recognized (how many ways does lichen nomenclature play with “fire” and “candles”??) – just as Empidonax can be told from Phoebes (Sayornis). Could schematic drawings of a few different types of lichens, naming the parts, be made available?
OK, now I am just ranting! Really, I am loving lichens, because it means intensive discovery of small things, really digging into the immanence of one’s environment. I will look back and laugh, but if some of my exasperation helps me to later help beginning lichen students, it will have been worth it to parade my ignorance.
