CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Chrysothrix chlorina

species of fungus

Specimen drawers, botanical folios and brass scientific instruments under study light
Science and natureInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionMar 10, 2026
Entity authorityQ2967428 ↗
Source-derived summary

Chrysothrix chlorina, the sulphur dust lichen, is a species of leprose (powdery) crustose lichen in the family Chrysotrichaceae. Originally described scientifically by the Swedish lichenologist Erik Acharius over 200 years ago, it has been shuffled to many different genera in its taxonomic history before finally being transferred to Chrysothrix in 1981. The lichen has a circumboreal distribution, meaning it occurs in northern boreal regions across the planet. It is typically saxicolous (rock-dwelling), particularly on the underside of rock overhangs, but has in rare instances been recorded growing on bark and various other surfaces.

The lichen thallus is a yellow to yellow-green layer of fungi and green algae that are bundled together in powdery clumps called soredia. It lacks apothecia and pycnidia, which are reproductive structures found in many other lichens. Chrysothrix chlorina resembles several other lichen species but can be differentiated based on chemical composition and morphological characteristics. Historical confusions and misidentifications have occurred, especially with species such as Chrysothrix candelaris and Psilolechia lucida. In India, Chrysothrix chlorina is used for dyeing, and 19th-century studies in Sweden revealed it could be used to produce 14 distinct colours.

Taxonomic history

Originally described by Swedish lichenologist Erik Acharius in 1799, Chrysothrix chlorina was first named Lepraria chlorina.

Editorial summary

“Chrysothrix chlorina” enters the record as species of fungus. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Chrysothrix, chlorina and species can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical orientation to terminology and classification, particularly when read beside dated observations, specimens or technical literature. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1981, 1799—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Chrysothrix, chlorina and species.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Chrysothrix chlorina” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Chrysothrix, chlorina and species provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 10, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2967428. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1981 and 1799.

Critical limits

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.

Best used for
  • Current terminology
  • Classification context
  • Finding cited technical literature
Verify next

Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Chrysothrix chlorina”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Chrysothrix chlorina primary sources, Chrysothrix chlorina archive and Chrysothrix research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Chrysothrix chlorina”?
  2. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
  3. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Chrysothrix chlorina” 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.