Historical taxonomy The first members of the present-day Teloschistaceae to be
formally described were the common sunburst lichen (
Xanthoria parietina) and the gold-eye lichen (
Teloschistes chrysophthalmus). These were two of several dozen lichen species described by the Swedish taxonomist
Carl Linnaeus, the former in his influential 1753 treatise , and the latter in his 1771 work . In his 1852 work (), the lichenologist
Abramo Bartolommeo Massalongo attempted to classify what he called "blasteniospore lichens". This term referenced species, diverse in
growth forms and appearance, united by the distinct spores now attributed to the family Teloschistaceae. These are spores that are divided into two compartments () separated by a central
septum with a small hole. Although Massalongo's efforts to arrange these
taxa into more natural genera were largely ignored by subsequent researchers, several of his proposed genera were resurrected for use 16 decades later, such as
Blastenia,
Gyalolechia,
Pyrenodesmia, and
Xanthocarpia. of the
crustose lichen
Pyrenodesmia variabilis, containing eight polarilocular The
family Teloschistaceae was formally
circumscribed by the lichenologist
Alexander Zahlbruckner in 1898. In his initial version, he grouped together
foliose and
fruticose taxa having polarilocular (i.e. two-locule) or four-locule , including the genera
Xanthoria,
Teloschistes, and
Lethariopsis. At that time, the growth form of the lichen was often used in classical
lichen taxonomy to segregate groups of species into families, and so in a subsequent (1926) publication, Zahlbruckner introduced the family Caloplacaceae to contain crustose lichens with polarilocular ascospores; this family included the genera
Caloplaca,
Blastenia,
Bombyliospora, and
Protoblastenia. The distinctness of the family Caloplacaceae was largely rejected by other authors, and it is now a historical
synonym of Teloschistaceae. In another older classification, crustose genera were grouped together in the family Blasteniaceae or the Placodiaceae. In 1971,
Carroll William Dodge proposed the family Xanthoriaceae to contain
Xanthodactylon,
Xanthopeltis, and
Xanthoria, but it was not
validly published. In the 20th century, particularly with the widespread use of
electron microscopy, the details of ascus structure became important considerations in the taxonomy of lichen-forming fungi. Studies on several Teloschistaceae species have noted the consistent presence of a cap-like zone at the tip of the ascus that shows a strong reaction to
iodine, characteristic of
amyloid substances. Using advanced
transmission electron microscopy,
Rosmarie Honegger confirmed a unique type of
ascus in Teloschistaceae, later named the
Teloschistes-type. This ascus is distinguished by a special outer layer that reacts to certain stains and lacks the typical structures seen at the tip, opening in an unusual pattern during spore release. The presence of this ascus type was later used as a diagnostic for the family Teloschistaceae following an
ultrastructural study that corroborated Honegger's work. In 1989
Ingvar Kärnefelt revised the family, accepting ten genera, and this served as the main taxonomic classification for the family until the
molecular era. In one of the last classifications of the family before the widespread use and implementation of molecular techniques, the
Outline of the Ascomycota accepted 12 genera in Teloschistaceae in 2006:
Caloplaca,
Cephalophysis,
Fulgensia,
Huea,
Ioplaca,
Josefpoeltia,
Seirophora,
Teloschistes,
Xanthodactylon,
Xanthomendoza,
Xanthopeltis, and
Xanthoria. The family continues to undergo significant changes. For example, in 2020, of all fungal families, Teloschistaceae had the fourth-highest number of new fungal names (a total of 128), including 8 genera, 48 new species and infraspecific taxa, and 72
new combinations.
Etymology As is
standard practice in
botanical nomenclature, the name
Teloschistaceae is based on the name of the
type genus,
Teloschistes, with the ending indicating the
rank of family. The genus name, assigned by the Norwegian botanist
Johannes M. Norman in 1852, comprises two
Ancient Greek words: (), meaning , , or ; and (), meaning , , or . It refers to the split ends of the thallus branches that are characteristic of that genus.
Subfamilial and ordinal classification }} Teloschistaceae is divided into three recognised subfamilies: Xanthorioideae, Caloplacoideae, and Teloschistoideae. In 2015, researchers proposed a fourth subfamily, Brownlielloideae, which was later shown by genetic studies to be a grouping based on mixed or misinterpreted data rather than a distinct
lineage. Further analysis placed what was thought to be Brownlielloideae within the already established Teloschistoideae, suggesting the proposed subfamily was not a separate branch of the family tree. DNA evidence also dispersed members of the informally introduced subfamily Ikaerioideae across the three acknowledged subfamilies, primarily within Teloschistoideae. Despite this, Sergey Kondratyuk and colleagues continue to use Brownlielloideae and Ikaerioideae in their publications, assigning nine genera to the former and two to the latter. The well-supported subfamilies (Xanthorioideae, Caloplacoideae, and Teloschistoideae) encompass a range of growth formscrustose, foliose, and fruticosedemonstrating the diverse evolutionary paths within the family. These groups are genetically distinct, each subfamily showing unique patterns in their
nuclear large ribosomal subunit RNA sequences. • Caloplacoideae • Type genus:
Caloplaca. Proposed by Ester Gaya and colleagues in 2012 and
validly published in 2020, Caloplacoideae consists mostly of crustose lichens with a wide geographical spread and produces a range of unique chemical compounds. • Teloschistoideae • Type genus:
Teloschistes. Initially proposed in 2013 and validly published with a full diagnosis in 2020, this subfamily is predominantly found in the Southern Hemisphere. • Xanthorioideae • Type genus:
Xanthoria. Named by Gaya and colleagues in 2012 and formally validated in 2020, Xanthorioideae species are primarily distributed in the Northern Hemisphere. The order
Teloschistales was first proposed by
David Hawksworth and Eriksson in 1986, with a single family (Teloschistaceae); other families were added later. In the 1990s, several authors recognised the Teloschistales as a suborder within the
Lecanorales; as a suborder it was named
Teloschistineae. Following the appearance of preliminary molecular studies, the Teloschistaceae was classified by some within the order Lecanorales, although others maintained the Teloschistales as a valid order. A large-scale, multigene phylogenetic study of the class
Lecanoromycetes published in 2014 corroborated the ordinal status of the Teloschistales, and showed it comprises two clades: Letrouitineae (containing Brigantiaeaceae and Letrouitiaceae) and its sister clade, Teloschistineae (containing Teloschistaceae and Megalosporaceae). The suborder Teloschistineae was formally proposed by Ester Gaya and François Lutzoni in 2016.
Molecular phylogenetics Historically, classification of taxa within the family relied on physical characteristics such as growth form, the nature of the outer layer of the lichen (the ), and spore type. Studies using modern
molecular phylogenetics have shown that
phenotypic characteristics () are not always reliable markers of phylogenetic relationships, and classifying species based on these characters has occasionally led to inaccurate interpretations of their evolutionary history. Advanced DNA analysis techniques have allowed scientists to identify and differentiate
cryptic species, which, though visually indistinguishable, are genetically distinct. This approach has unveiled distinct species within previously thought homogeneous groups, like the genus
Caloplaca, by uncovering their unique genetic markers. Although Teloschistaceae is now well represented in
GenBank, with thousands of
DNA sequences, the early molecular studies were limited by having too few examples of each species to draw definitive conclusions. With the increasing availability of genetic sequences, researchers began to gain a better understanding of the family's phylogeny. One significant finding from molecular data is that the traditional
morphological methods had mistakenly grouped different species together. For example, the genus
Caloplaca was once thought to be descended from a single lineage (i.e.
monophyletic), but is now understood to have been composed of multiple, unrelated groups (polyphyletic). This insight has prompted numerous proposals to redefine the genus into smaller, monophyletic groups; but such taxonomic changes have sometimes met with resistance due to the vast number of species reclassifications they would entail. According to the lichenologist
Robert Lücking, families like Teloschistaceae, which have undergone several changes in genus classification through various studies, require phylogenetic consolidation through extensive multi-locus analysis, incorporating all available data and employing rigorous analytical methods. This strategy, akin to approaches taken with families such as
Collemataceae,
Graphidaceae,
Pannariaceae, and
Parmeliaceae, is essential for accurately revising the taxonomic classification of this diverse and widespread group of lichens. Molecular evidence has also helped to map the family's relationships within the class Lecanoromycetes. A 2018 study identified the
Megalosporaceae as the Teloschistaceae's closest relative. ==Description==