Identification Information: This attractive species was described two decades ago (Randlane et al. 1995) and it is supposed to belong to the core group of cetrarioid lichens in fam. Parmeliaceae (Thell et al. 2009; Randlane et al. 2013, Divakar et al. 2017). Currently this species currently treated as Nephromopsis papuae (Divakar etal.2017). Although its morphology (separated dorsiventral lobes growing upright; no pycnidial projections or apothecia observed) and ecology (inhabits ground while all other Cetreliopsis species are corticolous) differ from those of the other representatives of the genus, there is no doubt about its generic position due to specific chemistry and anatomical structures (large pseudocyphellae on both thallus surfaces). Cetreliopsis papuae is a macrolichen with distinct morphological characters, so it can be recognized inthe field also by non-specialists. However, a new combination, Nephromopsis papuae( Randlane &Saag) Divakar, Crespo & Lumbsch, applying a wide genus concept, has been proposed in 2017.
Criterion A is not applicable as there is no information about the trends of population size over longtime periods. Criterion B: using GeoCat tool, EOO was assessed 8,821 km². The species has been recorded only in 3 mountain tips in Papua New Guinea and is definitely absent from some relatively often visited mountains in between these three localities. It might extend also to the mountains in Papua province, Indonesia (earlier Irian Jaya). Even so, the whole mountain range would be less than 20,000 sq km. Lichen population in mountain tips is clearly fragmented within this range, and the population reduction is inferred because of possible fires and mining activities in the species habitat. Cetreliopsis papuae isassessed EN. Criterion C is not applicable as there is no information about the number of mature individuals. Criterion D: AOO was assessed 12 sq km; no of known localities is 3.
Assessor/s: Randlane, T. & Aptroot, A.; Reviewer/s: Scheidegger, C.; Contributor(s): Weerakoon, G.
Divakar, P.K., Crespo, A., Kraichak, E., Leavitt, S.D., Singh, G., Schmitt, I. & H.T. Lumbsch (2017) Using a temporal phylogenetic method to harmonize family- and genus-level classification in the largest clade of lichen-forming fungi. Fungal Diversity84: 101-117.
IUCN. 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018-2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 15 November 2018).
Lambley, P. W. (1991) Lichens of Papua New Guinea. In: Galloway, D. J (ed.), Tropical Lichens: Their systematics, Conservation, and Ecology, pp. 69–84. Claredon Press, Oxford.
Randlane, T., Saag, A., Thell, A. & Ahti, T. (2013) Third world list of cetrarioid lichens – in a new databasedform, with amended phylogenetic and type information. Cryptogamie, Mycologie34(1): 79–94.
Randlane, T. Thell, A. & Saag, A. (1995) New data about the genera Cetrariopsis, Cetreliopsis and Nephromopsis (fam. Parmeliaceae, lichenized Ascomycota). Cryptogamie, Bryol. Lichenol. 16(1): 35–60.
Sipman, H. J. M. & Aptroot, A. (2007) Lichen biodiversity in Papua New Guinea. In: Marshall, A. J. & B. M.Beehler (ed.), The ecology of Papua, pp. 303–319. Periplus, Singapore.
Thell, A., Högnabba, F., Elix, J. A., Feuerer, T., Kärnefelt, I., Myllys, L., Randlane, T., Saag, A., Stenroos, S.,Ahti, T. & Seaward, M. R. D. (2009) Phylogeny of the cetrarioid core (Parmeliaceae) based on five genetic markers. Lichenologist41: 489– 511.
Find out more about the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteriahere.