Bacidia
genus of fungi
Bacidia is a genus of lichen-forming fungi in the family Ramalinaceae. These lichens are characterised by their crustose growth form, distinctive club-shaped reproductive structures called apothecia that contain long, needle-like spores, and their symbiotic partnership with green algae. Bacidia species typically grow on various substrates including tree bark, rock surfaces, and occasionally soil, and are distinguished from related genera by their specific spore characteristics and internal structures.
Taxonomy
The genus was circumscribed by Giuseppe De Notaris in 1846. In his original description, De Notaris distinguished Bacidia from the closely related genus Biatora based on several key characteristics. He noted that Bacidia species have apothecia (fruiting bodies) that are typically pink or reddish, or sometimes nearly cinnamon-coloured, with margins that persist throughout all developmental stages and are surrounded by a distinct cartilaginous border. The spores are rod-shaped with eight cells separated by cross-walls (septa), and are hyaline (transparent) and two-celled. De Notaris described the thallus as crustose, granular, and often effuse (spreading loosely), ranging from whitish to greyish-brown in colour. He included two species in his original circumscription: Bacidia rosella (the type species) and Bacidia carneola.
Description
Bacidia is characterised by its crustose (crust-like) growth form.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Bacidia” is genus of fungi. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Bacidia, 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.
Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Nov 17, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q4838937. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1846.
Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. 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 “Bacidia”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Bacidia primary sources, Bacidia archive and Bacidia 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 “Bacidia”?
- Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Bacidia” 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.