Daohugouthallus
fossil lichen
Daohugouthallus is a monotypic genus of lichen, known from fossils found in the Jurassic Haifanggou Formation near Daohugou village, Ningcheng County, China. The genus contains a single species, D. ciliiferus. Although Daohugouthallus shows some relationships to the family Parmeliaceae, it is distinct enough for scientists to suggest its classification into its own family, Daohugouthallaceae. Dated at approximately 165 million years ago, this macrolichen is thought to be the earliest fossil example of an epiphytic macrolichen, indicating it likely grew on gymnosperm plants.
Discovery
Five specimens of Daohugouthallus ciliiferus have been found so far. These were collected from the fossiliferous beds of the Jurassic Haifanggou Formation in China (Callovian–Oxfordian boundary interval, Middle Jurassic), a formation which has been dated at between 168 and 152 Ma based on isotopic analyses. More specifically, the site of discovery can be found about 80 km to the south of Chifeng City, within the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (lat.119°14.318′E, long. 41°18.979′N).
On first discovery, it was thought that the D. ciliiferus was a "lichen-like" organism. It was considered to be affiliated with either thallose liverworts, alga, or lichens.
“Daohugouthallus” enters the record as fossil lichen. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Daohugouthallus, fossil and lichen can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Daohugouthallus” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Daohugouthallus, fossil and lichen provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 14, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q116846935. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Daohugouthallus”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Daohugouthallus primary sources, Daohugouthallus archive and Daohugouthallus 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 “Daohugouthallus”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Daohugouthallus” 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.