rejected from Galapagos Checklist, misidentification for A. chrysops, fide K. Knudsen (pers. comm., 2007).
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, misidentifications of Ramalina usnea, fide Weber (1966) & fide F. Bungartz annotations, 2009
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, The record cited in Weber (1986) is based on a COLO exsiccati specimen (distributed as Bacidia cf. millegrana, no. 121; L-41552, COLO 185646); the specimen examined from this exsiccati deposited in COLO is annotated by Weber as "...compares well with Vainio, Exsicc. No. 336 from Minas Gerais, Lafayette, 1885"; although the Brazilian Vainio spcimen was not examined, the material from Galapagos clearly looks nothing like the type specimen of B. millegranum from the herbarium of Müll. Arg. in G (G-209674).
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Misidentification of Bacidia russeola (Kremp.) Zahlbr.; the record is based on one specimen originally identified by Weber as B. luteola (Schrad.) Mudd., it was later published in Weber (1986) as B. rubella; B. rubella, however has a northern temperate distribution and the specimen agrees well with B. russeola.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): Reports by Weber (1986) and Elix & McCarthy (1998) refer to Lacrima epiphora., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): Reports by Weber (1986) and Elix & McCarthy (1998) refer to the newly described Phaeoplaca tortuca., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): A single specimen collected by Reverend T. Hill during the Hassler Expedition 1872 (FH-Tuck 259998), identified by C.M. Wetmore in June 1993 as C. cerina s.l. is most probably erroneously labeled; like several other specimens collected by Hill during that expedition this specimen was not likely collected in the Galapagos., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): Records previously published online under this name (Bungartz et al. 2016) are based on misidentifications of the isidiate morphotype of the newly described Oceanoplaca sideritoides., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): Reported by Weber (1986) and subsequently Elix & McCarthy (1998) based on misidentifications of Caloplaca cupulifera and/or a sorediate morphotype of Caloplaca subsoluta s.l. (Weber, W.A. s.n. & Lanier, J., L-62891, COLO 294630)., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Weber (1986): misidentifications of C. isidiosa (Vain.) Zahlbr.; Bungartz et al. (2020b): According to Weber (1986) erroneous reports of ‘Caloplaca’ (= Oceanoplaca) isidiosa., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): A specimen in COLO (Weber, W.A. s.n., L-40827, COLO 190227) has been annotated by Weber as Caloplaca ferruginea agg., but this record was never published. The specimen belongs to the newly described Oceanoplaca sideritoides., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): First reported from the Galapagos by Dodge (1936) based on a specimen collected during the Hancock Expedition 1934 (Taylor, W.R. 874b, included in the same packet as FH 197443). Weber (1986) rejected the report as misidentification of ‘Caloplaca’ (= Oceanoplaca) isidiosa., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020): First cited in Weber (1966) based on records of Placodium murorum reported by Stewart (1912); according to Weber (1986) misidentifications of ‘Caloplaca’ (= Oceanoplaca) isidiosa., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): Aptroot identified an extremely poorly developed specimen collected on bark as this taxon (Aptroot, A. 65096, CDS 31678; handwritten annotation). The record was never published and the identity of the material remains unresolved., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): First reported from the Galapagos by Dodge (1936) based on a specimen collected during the Hancock Expedition 1934 (Taylor, W.R. 859). Weber (1986) did not find the specimen on which this record is based; possibly a misidentification of ‘Caloplaca’ (= Oceanoplaca) isidiosa., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): Records of this species from the Galapagos were never published; they refer to material originally identified by Weber as this taxon, because it is fertile, less abundantly isidiate and frequently ± pruinose. Here these specimens are treated as part of Oceanoplaca isidiosa., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): Non-isidiate specimens of the newly described Oceanoplaca sideritoides were previously included in the online checklist (Bungartz et al. 2016) under this name., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, misidentifications of Canoparmelia martinicana (Nyl.) Elix & Hale
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Misidentification of Chrysothrix xanthina, fide A. Aptroot (pers. comm.).
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Knudsen & Bungartz (2014): In the CDF Checklist of Galapagos Lichenized Fungi, C. galapagoana was treated as Chrysothrix aff. occidentalis (Bungartz et al. 2013)., source: Bungartz et al (2013d)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Misidentifications of C. corymbosula (see Yánez-Ayabaca et al. 2013).
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, most likely misidentifications of C. sphacelata
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, all Galapagos specimens contain thamnolic and didymic acid and specimens previously identified as C. macilenta var. bacillaris are misidentifications of C. bungartzii or C. macilenta s.str. (Yánez-Ayabaca et al. 2000)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Elix & McCarthy (1998) list Cladonia subcariosa as a synonym, but according to Yánez-Ayabaca et al. (2013) reports of C. polycarpoides Nyl. and C. subcariosa by Weber (1986) are all based on misidentifications of C. dactylota, source: Yánez-Ayabaca et al. (2013)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, The report in Hooker (1847) is most certainly not the arctic-alpine C. rangiferina, but a similar species of reindeer lichens, most likely C. confusa f. bicolor
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, the type specimen of Pertusaria colobina Tuck., later transferred by Messuti & Vobis (2002) and Messuti (2003) into Coccotrema colobinum, was supposedly collected by the Reverend T. Hill during the Hassler Expedition in Galapagos. Messuti & Vobis (2002) suggest that one of four specimens labelled (a) in the packet is material collected in Galapagos. It is, however, highly doubtful that any one of these four specimens was actually collected in the archipelago. Not a single specimen of that species has ever been found since. Instead, Messuti & Vobis (2002) cite two more specimens collected by Imshaugh & Ohlsson (MSC 43340, MSC 44816) from the Chilean cost. It is therefore much more probable that the type material of this species, like so many other specimens collected by Reverend T. Hill during the Hassler Expedition, was actually mislabeled (previously the same was already suggested by Weber (1086) p. 490); A. Fryday examined the type from FH and observed: The "Galapagos" collection has C. coccophorum (= Lepolichen coccophorus) on the same piece of bark, which makes the possibility that it is really from the Galapagos extremely unlikely. It was even annotated "probably from Str. of Magellan" by Rolf Santesson in 1955
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Material originally identified by Aptroot as Compsocladium archboldianum, but this species does not occur in South America and the identification was first considered to refer to Compsocladium kalbii Frisch; the few CDS specimens are, however, an isidiate species of Micarea (Aptroot, A. 64664, 63186 and Nugra, F. 418).
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Previously also treated as Dictyonema glabratum fide Bungartz 2010; in Dodge (1935) und Weber (1966) as Cora pavonia; the species does not occur in the Galapagos and refer to several different, endemic taxa (see Dal-Forno et al. 2017)., source: Yánez et al. (2012)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, the Galapagos record of this species described from Guatemala in (Yánez-Ayabaca et al. 2012) is based on a minute specimen from which DNA-amplification failed; it can no longer be assumed that the species occurs in Galapagos (see Dal-Forno et al. 2017)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, cited in the key by Follmann (2001; as Roccellina badia) for Galapagos and North Peru, but the material could not be confirmed and most likely corresponds to fertile specimens of Dirina approximata, source: Follmann (2001)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, according to Tehler et al. (2013) D. catalinariae does not occur in Galapagos and the specimens refer to the newly described Dirina pacifica Tehler & Ertz; according to Aptroot & Sparrius (2008) specimens reported previously to Roccellina badia Tehler belong to D. catalinariae Hasse and thus also refer to D. pacifica.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, according to Tehler et al. (2013) D. catalinariae does not occur in Galapagos and the specimens refer to the newly described Dirina pacifica Tehler & Ertz; according to Aptroot & Sparrius (2008) specimens reported previously to Roccellina badia Tehler belong to D. catalinariae Hasse and thus also refer to D. pacifica.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, misidentification of Graphis subchrysocarpa, fide Bungartz et al. (2009); specimens in COLO: Weber (L- 40405, L- 43952).
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, misidentification of Graphis rimulosa, fide Bungartz et al. (2009) and Opegrapha graphidiza s.l., fide F. Bungartz annotation, 2008.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, distributed as Lichenes Exsiccati, Colorado, No. 138; in distributing his exsiccata Weber (1981) wrote: “...incorrect, but no alternative identification available...”; most collections in the exsiccata refer to L. floridula, source: Bungartz et al. (2020)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, records previosly identified as L. expallens belong to an undescribed species of Vainionora according to Bungartz et al. (2003c), source: Bungartz et al. (2013c, 2020)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020): Weber (1986, p. 489) doubts that the type specimen deposited in the Farlow Herbarium (FH-TUCK 197145) was actually collected in Galapagos. He annotated the specimen as follows: “This is a Lecidea (sect. Biatora). Determination of the species will have to await more study of the tropical corticolous species. I have strong doubts that this actually came from the Galapagos having nothing like it from my extensive collections there. The fragment of Xanthoria parietina, not yet found in Galapagos, is further indication of incorrect labeling. Several other proven cases from the Hassler Expedition are: Pertusaria colobina Tuck. and Placopsis cribellans.” W.A. Weber, May 1966. We agree with this assessment. The material does not belong to Lecanora s.str. and we have never seen material from the Galapagos even remotely similar to the FH specimen, neither in the field nor among herbarium specimens., source: Bungartz et al. (2020)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, according to Bungartz et al. (2020) a synonym of Malcolmiella granifera (Ach.) Kalb & Lücking 2000, but specimens identified by Weber as such mostly belong to Lecanora leprosa or L. schindleri. One specimen (Weber, W.A. s.n., L-40082, COLO 188056) belongs to L. floridula, while another (Weber, W.A. s.n. & Lanier, J., L-63337, COLO 297084) is a misdetermination of Lepraria tenella (Tuck.) Lendemer & Hodkinson, source: Bungartz et al. (2020)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020): Guderley (1999) cited material of this species from the Galapagos, but in some of his statements and distribution maps this species was confused with L. leprosa (see comments for that species)., source: Bungartz et al. (2020)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020): Records of L. praeferenda for the Galapagos are problematic and could not be confirmed here. Guderley (1999) did not cite a specimen, but his distribution map suggests that this species occurs in the Galapagos (fig. 10B, p. 166). The species is morphologically and anatomically similar to L. tropica, but it can be distinguished by its different epihymenium. Both have distinctly sessile apothecia with deep orange brown to fuscous brown discs, but the epihymenium of L. tropica lacks crystals and its brownish pigmentation is persistent in K (glabrata-type). The epihymenium of L. praeferenda contains crystals and both the crystals and brownish pigment are soluble in K. All specimens morphologically similar to L. praeferenda examined here had a glabrata-type epihymenium and thus belong to L. tropica. The distribution record on the map in Guderley (1999) is therefore most likely in error., source: Bungartz et al. (2020)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020): Reports in Guderley (1999) were based on erroneously labeled material collected by R. Kricke. Cotopaxi National Park is located on the Ecuadorian mainland., source: Bungartz et al. (2020)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020): The identification of this species by Hertel (1989) was incorrect and the specimen has been redetermined as L. austrooceanica; see detailed comments under that species., source: Bungartz et al. (2020)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, cited first by Stewart (1912); rejected by Weber (1966)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, previous reports belong to Lepraria finkii (B. de Lesd.) R.C. Harris
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Listed by Weber (1966) probably because the taxon is mentioned by Dodge [1936: Santa María (Charles or Floreana) January 1934, R.W. Taylor 903], but no specimen found in COLO, CAS or FH; later checklists by Weber (1985) or Elix & McCarty (1988) ignored this taxon.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, the only specimen upon which this preliminary identification was based (Aptroot 64602 B, CDS 44667) reacts K+ yellow to red; L. desquamescens does not contain secondary metabolites according to Rivas Plata et al. (2010)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, specimens reported as Lobaria dissecta by Weber (1986) and Elix & McCarthy (1998) were initially annotated by Bungartz as L. patinifera, but according to Simon et al. (2020) the material belongs to Emmanuelia ornata, source: Weber (1986), Elix & McCarthy (1998)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, the species has been reported from the archipelago in several previous versions of this checklist; according to Simon et al. (2020) these reports all refer to Emmanuelia ornata; Weber (1986) and Elix & McCarthy (1998) reported it as Lobaria dissecta, source: Simon et al. (2020)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, described by Aptroot & Bungartz (2007) as Ramalina fragilis. The specimen mentioned by Weber (1986: 474) Sipman 63573 was not examined., source: Aptroot & Bungartz (2007)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Elix & McCarthy (1998) suggested that the record in Weber (1986 p. 474) of Parmeliella pannosa refer to Parmeliella mariana, but the specimen that Weber collected and upon which Weber's report was based, is densely isidiate and thus refers to Parmeliella stylophora (Vain.) P.M. Jørg.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, first reported by Weber (1986 p. 474) as Parmeliella pannosa; Elix & McCarthy (1998 p. 171-172) distinguish both P. pannosa and P. mariana, but suggest that Galapagos record refers to Parmeliella mariana; the specimen that Weber collected and upon which the record is based, is, however, densely isidiate and thus refers to Parmeliella stylophora (Vain.) P.M. Jørg.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Erroneously reported online (Bungartz et al. 2016), based on a specimen collected on the continent (Ecuador, Azuay, Cuenca, along northern river bank of Rio Tomebamba, between Calle Presidente Borrero and Calle Manuel Vega, 2°52′60″S, 78°58′60″W, 2450 m alt., 13-Nov-2006, Bungartz, F. 5493)., source: Bungartz & Spielmann (2019)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, all specimens cited by Weber (1986) that we examined were based on misidentification of Canoparmelia raunkiaeri (Vain.) Elix & Hale., source: Bungartz & Spielmann (2019)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Elix & McCarthy (1989) include this species in their checklist despite Weber’s (1986: 490) having previously expressed doubts as to whether the original report was correct: ‘... Reported by Dodge (1936). The specimen was not found at FH or MO. This Dodge determination is not to be accepted ...’. During our survey we did not collect any specimens and found no historical material in B, NM, FH, COLO or OSC. Therefore, we agree with Weber that the original report should be considered erroneous., source: Bungartz & Spielmann (2019)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Misidentification of Hyperphyscia adglutinata
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Misidentifications of P. mexicana (all Galapagos specimens with K+ yellow medulla, but lacking zeorin); in Weber (1986) and Elix & McCarthy (1998) correctly referred to as P. mexicana.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Misidentifications of P. mexicana (all Galapagos specimens lacking zeorin, medulla K+ yellow); Thompson (1963 p. 14) suggested this might be the correct name for P. insularis, but Weber (1968 p. 478) disagrees (see comments there).
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, all Galapagos specimens are P. kalbii and not P. integrata
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): First reported by Stewart (1912); according to Weber (1986) based on erroneous reports of Oceanoplaca isidiosa., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): Erroneous reports of the newly described Xanthomendoza leoncita; first reported by Weber (1986) and Elix & McCarthy (1998) under the name Xanthoria candelaria (L.) Th. Fr., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, F. Bungartz & R. Miranda: erroneous identification of Pseudopyrenula diluta.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, In Elix & McCarthy (1998) erronously cited from Galapagos (Weber 1993: 433), but the citation in Weber (1993) is from the Cocos Islands! Reports of the species in previous versions of this checklist were cited as "rejected"; one single specimen in CDS (Aptroot 64623) annotated by R. Lücking as P. tetracerae is extremely poorly developed and lacks perithecia; the specimen is treated here as P. distans (= P. cf. conspersa).
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, F. Bungartz & R. Miranda: all material previously identified as P. acutalis does not belong to that species.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, F. Bungartz & R. Miranda: all specimens in CDS misidentifications; specimen in COLO not examined: Santa Cruz, on Cordia lutea, Darwin Station, Weber (L-40579), det. Aptroot, 1991, as P. cinerea (syn. of P. microcarpa).
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, COLO 192496 was identified by A. Aptroot as P. pyrenuloides, but fide R. Miranda annot. 2010 refers to P. thelomorpha.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, erroneously reported by Bungartz et al. (2013c); specimens belong to Lecanora pyrrhosporoides, source: Bungartz et al. (2013c), Bungartz et al. (2020)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, specimens in COLO identified as P. connectens all belong to P. cocoës and are not as A. Aptroot (pers. comm.) suspected misidentifications of P. subcinerea.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Elix & McCarthy (1998) are incorrect to suggest that Galapagos records of P. eschweileri (Weber 1986 p. 481) refer to P. sorediata; P. eschweileri has ascospores with 4 cells, a P+ red medulla and also differs from P. sorediata by its distribution.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Elix & McCarthy (1998) suggest that reports by Weber (1986) of R. dasypoga auct. non Tuck. belong to R. australiensis; herbarium specimens in FH labeled as R. dasypoga belong to several similar species (R. aspera, R. complanata, and R. sideriza); according to Aptroot (pers. comm.) records of R. dasypoga are also based on misidentifications of Ramalina sorediosa; most likely synonyms are Ramalina furcellata, Ramalina farinacea auct. non Ach., Ramalina dasypoga auct. non Tuck, source: Aptroot & Bungartz (2007)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, misidentification of Ramalina aspera, fide Aptroot & Bungartz (2007), source: Aptroot & Bungartz (2007)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Elix & McCarthy (1998) treat Ramalina farinacea auct. non Ach., Ramalina dasopoga auct. non Tuck., and R. furcellata (Mont.) Zahlbr. as synonyms of Ramalina australiensis, a which they consequently report from the Galapagos; but according to Aptroot & Bungartz (2007) the reports of R. furcellata by Weber (1986) are based on misidentification of Ramalina sorediosa; reports of Ramalina farinacea, R. furcellata, Ramalina australiensis thus all refer to Ramalina sorediosa, source: Aptroot & Bungartz (2007)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Elix & McCarthy (1998) treat Ramalina farinacea auct. non Ach., Ramalina dasopoga auct. non Tuck., and R. furcellata (Mont.) Zahlbr. as synonyms of Ramalina australiensis, a which they consequently report from the Galapagos; but according to Aptroot & Bungartz (2007) the reports of R. furcellata by Weber (1986) are based on misidentification of Ramalina sorediosa; reports of Ramalina farinacea, R. furcellata, Ramalina australiensis thus all refer to Ramalina sorediosa, source: Aptroot & Bungartz (2007)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, records refer to Ramalina puiggarii according to Aptroot & Bungartz (2007), source: Aptroot & Bungartz (2007)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, according to Tehler et al. (2009) misidentification of Roccella margaritifera or R. nigerrima; initially presumed to occur in Galapagos (Tehler 2007), but later shown to be restricted to coastal Peru (Tehler et al. 2009)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, misidentification of various species in the Roccella galapagoensis agg. fide Tehler et al. (2009)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, wrong reference, therefore rejected by Aptroot & Sparrius (2008): Elix & McCarthy (1998: 253) referring to Tehler (1983: 61) who does not mention the species
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Misidentifications of S. dichotoma s.l.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, the original reports are based on specimens in CAS: Isabela, Iguana Cove, Snodgrass & Heller; Floreana, A. Stewart No. 400; Santa Cruz, NW-side, A. Stewart No. 401; according to Weber (1966) and Elix & McCarthy (1998) these reports are misidentification of Sticta weigelii, but research suggests that several different species were previously subsumed under the Sticta weigelii morphodeme; thus more research is necessary, what these reports refer to
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): First reported by Dodge (1936), subsequently cited also by Weber (1966), but subsequently considered an erroneous identification of T. flavicans (Weber 1986). We agree with Weber’s assessment: the specimen in FH annotated by Dodge (Taylor, W.R. 865, FH 197409) is indeed sorediate and sterile., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Weber (1986: 493) suggested that U. longissima reported by Stewart (1912) refers to U. amabilis,even though he included the taxon only in an appendix and not in his main list. Both reports are erroneous, based on misidentifications of Usnea mexicana. Usnea amabilis is presently known only from the South American continent, but not from the Galapagos (Truong et al. 2013b).
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, refers to Usnea baileyi (Stirt.) Zahlbr. according to Bungartz et al. (2018)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, reports in Farlow (1902), Stewart (1912), Weber (1966, 1986), and Elix & McCarthy (1998) are based on misidentifications of Usnea mexicana
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Weber (1986: 493) suggests that the records by Farlow (1902) and Stewart (1912) are erroneous, therefore including the taxon among his “rejected reports”. His assessment that these reports are “a common waste-basket for unidentifiable tropical Usnea” is quite accurate. Elix & McCarthy (1998) identified Usnea ceratina auct. non Ach. from Galapagos as Usnea rubicunda, following Weber’s (1986) statement that at least some material in FH collected by Baur refers to U. rubiginea (a name cross-referenced by Elix & McCarthy to U. rubicunda). Specimens that we have examined either refer to Usnea subdasaea [e.g., COLO 255417 (L-54989)] or Usnea rubicunda [e.g., Snodgrass, R.E. & Heller, E. s.n.; FH 197432]. Truong & Clerc (2012) also could not confirm reports of this species from the Galapagos.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, first reported by Hooker (1847), subsequently by Farlow (1902) and Stewart (1912), and then by Weber (1966), who nevertheless later doubted these identifications, arguing that they were based on “scrappy specimens collected by J.H. Andersson and Charles Darwin” (Weber 1986: 493; under U. plicata); material that we examined corresponds to Usnea baileyi
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, first reported by Stewart (1912), subsequently by Weber (1966), who then suggested these specimens referred to U. amabilis (see Weber 1986); the name was also included in the checklist of Elix & McCarthy (1998); all material, however, refers to Usnea mexicana
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, see comments for U. dasypoga.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Usnea rubescens is a synonym of U. rubicunda, but Weber (1986: 487) lists this taxon as a synonym of Usnea rubiginea, which refers to U. strigosa (see comments for U. rubiginea).
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Weber (1986: 487) first cited U. rubiginea, but Elix & McCarthy (1998) subsequently referred these records to Usnea rubicunda. Galapagos specimens, however, are misidentifications of at least three different species: U. erinacea, U. rubicunda and/or U. poliothrix.
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, Bungartz et al. (2020b): Previously included in the online checklist (Bungartz et al. 2016); the record refers to the newly described Xanthomendoza leoncita., source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, previous versions of the checklist reported Xanthoparmelia congensis (J. Steiner) Hale, but specimens have more slightly convex lobes, isidia are only initially globose, but with age become cylindrical and eventually even sparsely branched and are not erumpent; specimens thus belong to X. neopropaguloides
rejected from Galapagos Checklist, see comments under Polycauliona candelaria, source: Bungartz et al. (2020b)