Heiomasia
genus of fungi
Heiomasia is a genus of corticolous (bark-dwelling), crustose lichens in the family Graphidaceae. It has five species.
Taxonomy
The genus was circumscribed in 2010 by Matthew Nelsen, Robert Lücking and Eimy Rivas Plata, with Heiomasia sipmanii assigned as the type species. This species, found in Thailand and the Philippines, was first described as Herpothallon sipmanii. Molecular phylogenetic analysis showed that it, along with another then-undescribed species, H. seaveyorum, formed a clade with a distinct lineage in the Graphidaceae, and so Heiomasia was created to contain them. The genus name honours Harrie Sipman, "recognizing his substantial contributions to tropical lichenology". The name is constructed from letters of his full name: Henricus Johannes Maria Sipman (with the "J" changed to "I").
Description
Heiomasia species have pale green to whitish thalli that are effuse (spread out) and byssoid (wispy, like cotton), and often have a white prothallus. A major characteristic of the genus is the presence of large sausage-shaped or disc-shaped isidia-like structures. Lichen products found in Heiomasia are protocetraric acid, hypoprotocetraric acid, and metabolically related satellite compounds.
The public source identifies “Heiomasia” as genus of fungi. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Heiomasia, genus and fungi.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Heiomasia”, the useful work is to connect “genus of fungi” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 3, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q21231667. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2010.
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 “Heiomasia”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Heiomasia primary sources, Heiomasia archive and Heiomasia 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 “Heiomasia”?
- 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 “Heiomasia” 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.