Brigantiaea
genus of fungi
Brigantiaea is a genus of lichen-forming fungi in the family Brigantiaeaceae. The genus was established in 1853 by the Italian botanist Vittore Trevisan and is named after Francesco Briganti, a professor at the University of Naples. These lichens are recognised by their bright yellow to orange fruiting bodies that stand out against their crusty, wart-textured surface.
Taxonomy
It was circumscribed by the Italian botanist Vittore Benedetto Antonio Trevisan de Saint-Léon in 1853. Trevisan distinguished Brigantiaea from other genera in the group by its distinctive spore walls (spore murali). In his original description, he included five species in the new genus: B. mariae (designated as the type species), B. berteroana, B. tricolor, B. argentea, and B. tristis. These species were all transfers from the genus Biatora. Trevisan noted that B. mariae could be found growing on tree bark (Ad arborum cortices) in the Cape of Good Hope region, as recorded by Johann Franz Drège's collections.
The genus name Brigantiaea honours Francesco Briganti (1802–1865), an Italian botanist and professor at the University of Naples.
Description
Brigantiaea forms a wart-textured crust (verrucose thallus) that spreads thinly over bark or rock.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Brigantiaea” is genus of fungi. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Brigantiaea, genus and fungi, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “genus of fungi” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Datasets, specimens, observations and peer-reviewed methods provide the appropriate test for the technical claims summarized here. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 29, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q4967217. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1853, 1802 and 1865.
A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Brigantiaea”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Brigantiaea primary sources, Brigantiaea archive and Brigantiaea research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Brigantiaea”?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
- Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Brigantiaea” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.