Dacampia
genus of fungi
Dacampia is a genus of fungi in the family Dacampiaceae. It contains 15 species. The genus was circumscribed in 1853 by Italian lichenologist Abramo Bartolommeo Massalongo, with Dacampia hookeri assigned as the type species. The genus name honours Italian naturalist Benedetto de Dacampo (1787–1851).
Species
Dacampia caloplacicola Halıcı, Candan & Etayo (2009)
Dacampia cladoniicola Halıcı & A.Ö.Türk (2008)
Dacampia cyrtellae Brackel (2010)
Dacampia hookeri (Borrer) A.Massal. (1853)
Dacampia lecaniae Kocourk. & K.Knudsen (2010)
Dacampia leptogiicola (D.Hawksw.) D.Hawksw. (2008)
Dacampia muralicola Halıcı & D.Hawksw. (2008)
Dacampia neglecta Stein (1872)
Dacampia peltigericola D.Hawksw. & C.J.B.Hitch (2006)
Dacampia pentaseptata Etayo (2017)
Dacampia rhizocarpicola D.Hawksw.
“Dacampia” enters the record as genus of fungi. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Dacampia, genus and fungi can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Dacampia” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Dacampia, genus and fungi provides the most credible route into that argument.
Datasets, specimens, observations and peer-reviewed methods provide the appropriate test for the technical claims summarized here. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 3, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q10465525. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1853, 1787, 1851 and 2009.
Scientific names, classifications and consensus can change while older terminology persists in catalogues and historical literature. 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 “Dacampia”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Dacampia primary sources, Dacampia archive and Dacampia 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 “Dacampia”?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Dacampia” 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.