This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Lichen was copied or moved into Draft:Lichens and air pollution with this edit on 12 December 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
I always thought the plural was simply "lichen", but shouldn't this be at the singular anyway? Tokerboy — Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 22 January 2003 (UTC)
We want the plural to be lichen because lichen is made up of multiple organisms, so it makes sense to call it lichen as a plural, I was recently doing this in a Biology class, and wrongly corrected my teacher (whoops) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JhePittsStop ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You may have noticed that it seldom works out very well to have lots of pictures evenly registered along one side, as that sort of sets the amount of text that needs to be present in each section. I like all the pictures, but arrangementg with some on the bottom may be a better arrangement. - Marshman 06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The article has had many modifications of images since the above discussion. I propose a gallery of 4 images, adjacent to the lead, showing clear examples of crustose, fruiticose, foliose, and squamulose growth forms. FloraWilde ( talk) 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Would someone be kind enough to provide a short list of common lichens with the taxonomy of their component fungi and algae? Such as reindeer moss and Iceland moss and Wolf moss and so forth? Or links if this is more practical? NaySay 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Mention of Reindeer Moss was added to the lead 1st paragraph. FloraWilde ( talk) 12:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
A paragraph was added saying some lichens have brown algae and yellow-green algal as phycobionts. Which lichens? Where is the reference? Heliocybe 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I know lichens are very slow growing, but how slow? I'd like to see information on the relative speed of growth as it varies with type and climate. BeeTea 03:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Aren't "form" and "morphology" redundant? Also I don't think the third paragraph, possible parasitism relates to this topic; it could be consolidated with the mention of the same thing in the first section. -- Ericjs 03:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if it could be useful to illustrate this article with this image? -- Slaunger ( talk) 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not a native speaker of English, so I looked up the word's pronunciation and while this page says it's /laɪ.kən/, my Cambridge Dictionary says it's /lɪtʃ.ən/, also saying that /laɪ.kən/ is American way of saying it? Is this true? 84.50.228.110 ( talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Please add the appropriate reference. Heliocybe ( talk) 19:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This article seems, in parts, to be written in an academic obscurantist style which is pretty jarring from Wikipedia's usual casual English style. Phrases like "the mutalistic “marriage” slowly became constant" are ridiculously overbaked for example. Other sections use technical buzzwords in places where common words would be clearer. 82.16.16.210 ( talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to add keywords somewhere in an article? e.g. I'd like to add "fungus hybrid" and "fungi hybrid" and "algae hybrid" (and alga and algal) as keywords so searches (in here or on search engines) of those terms will find the Lichen article, but I don't see an obvious way to add keywords without adding those phrases to the articles themselves. They're more-properly a symbiosis, but "hybrid" is not incorrect, either. Darr247 ( talk) 06:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to take a stab at improving this important article to WP:GA status. Some major reorganization is needed, as well as much additional material. If anyone has ideas on how to improve the article, please drop a note here at the talk page, or just be bold and edit the main page. I'm not a lichen expert, just a guy with a big stack of books. I also rerated the WikiProject Fungi template from B to C; needs to be better cited for B class. Sasata ( talk) 17:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase. You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Lichen (alga). Anybot ( contact operator) 17:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
So how did biologists learn that lichens were composite organisms? Or was this fact known since antiquity? (I seriously doubt that, based on what I've read of Pliny's Natural History, but it's possible.) -- llywrch ( talk) 17:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that Toby Spribille (University of Graz) and team has shown that lichens are composed of three elements ascomycete + basidiomycete + algae, I believe this needs to be added to the the content. J.P. (2016): Basidiomycete yeasts in the cortex of ascomycete macrolichens. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf8287 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollisterbulldawg2 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I was looking for something about Lichen in the wiki about what they eat/(energy sources) and by products. anyone one have an idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.193.213.25 ( talk) 10:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I was just wondering why no taxobox is incorparated? I understand that a lichen is really two species, although shouldn't at least the fungus be represented, especially in the light of fungi interchanging algal symbionts. Mike of Wikiworld ( talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Debivort's recent (6 June 2011) edit reversion has (perhaps as an oversight) ignored the fact that, assuming that reverted editor "Retallack" is the same "G.J. Retallack" who authored the paper in question, then there is no better qualified person to judge whether or not "... this claim ... has since been retracted by its author" - it is a bit hard to describe an edit as "uncited" when it is editing a citation of a valid publication by the editor themself.
On reading the paper, it seems to present a reasonable case for at least one Ediacaran organism (Dickinsonia) being either a fungus or a lichenised fungus, but does not offer a strong argument to resolve these possibilities. If (the editor) Retallak were to modify his edit to recognise this weaker claim, I would see no problem with it. FredV ( talk) 15:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
So, fungi invented farming long before we did! Huw Powell ( talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Was not Beatrix Potter (of Peter Rabbit fame) to first to claim that lichens are composite organisms? Why is she not recognized in this article. Her idea was unjustly rejected by her male peers; why is this injustice perpetuated in Wikipedia? 152.16.27.140 ( talk) 21:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)BWA
I'm not convinced the Haeckel image is the right one for the lead. He has emphasized the symmetry of the specimens, and as with many of his marine illustrations, probably greatly exaggerated: I've never seen lichens quite like that. Would it perhaps not be better to put his 'artistic' image down in a History section, and to use the next image (which is already very large) as the sole lead image? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Our article says "The algal or cyanobacterial cells are photosynthetic, and as in plants they reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide into organic carbon sugars to feed both symbionts." Here, "reduce" refers to redox. Presumably the fungal component does the opposite. Does anyone know a source on the overall carbon input/output for any lichen species, or for lichens in general? FloraWilde ( talk) 12:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a RS clear authority as to whether "lichenized fungus" refers to the entire lichen [2], or just to the fungal component? FloraWilde ( talk) 14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this isn't so much a matter of semantics as a matter of rhetoric. Synecdoche (referring to the whole by a part) is very common in language generally, so much so that we usually don't notice it, and in this case it certainly doesn't reflect any disagreement over what a lichen or a lichenized fungus actually is. Rather the synecdoche reflects a view that the classification of lichens should be based on the fungal partner rather than treating lichens as a distinct taxon in their own right. Thus on one view the whole entity is classified as a lichenized fungus rather than a combined organism, so the important part in this view, the lichenized fungus, is used to stand for the whole. Not surprisingly, a quick search through the issues of the British Lichen Society Bulletin I happen to have doesn't show a single use of "lichenized fungus", since the Society is devoted to lichens as a taxon distinct from fungi (they are lichenologists, not mycologists interested in lichenized fungi). Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
(This section is related to the section above.) I recently read there is a fungus (not named in the article) that is lichenized by two different photobionts (both algae, as I recall), but not at the same time, thereby creating what would be two entirely different lichens, except for the classification scheme of defaulting to the fungus. Does anyone know what the fungus is, and how the two different lichens are classified as being different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloraWilde ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The "lichenized fungus", Dendriscocaulon, is a genus of several different species by all measures other than the convention of classifying lichens by their fungal component, which is the only thing going. Please contribute to this article that does not neatly fit into the WP:Plant article template, and does not fit a taxobox into it very neatly. FloraWilde ( talk) 14:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Our article says, with RS, "Lichens are capable of surviving extremely low levels of water content ( poikilohydric)." This sentence is easy to source with other RS. But is there an actual authority, other than summary descriptions used as RS, that concludes all lichens are poikilohydric? FloraWilde ( talk) 13:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The article starts off "A lichen ( /ˈlaɪkən/, sometimes /ˈlɪtʃən/ ..." The characters used in a pronunciation guide can, and should, be intelligible to an elementary school student. Can anyone help fix this by use of more common special characters for pronunciation? FloraWilde ( talk) 14:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I put up a construction tag. I am doing a Plain English rewrite of the lead. Any essential technical term is defined in plain English followed by the technical term in parentheses, and any nonessential technical term has been moved to a section below. I will similarly start each section with plain English definitions, and move from this to technical info and terms per MOS. When I am done with the sections, I will go back to the article history and check each sentence had its content and sources preserved, so if you notice content was accidentally deleted, it will get restored (or you can stick it back in). FloraWilde ( talk) 14:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
In non-technical articles (See here and here) it would appear that Toby Spribille et al have found that lichens are a combination of two fungi with an alga, or a fungus, a yeast and an alga, which runs counter to the accepted structure of a lichen. I see no mention of this in the article. I am no expert on the subject, but if this recent discovery has any validity, I would have thought it at least would rate a mention, as it would require a rewriting of the entire article. Ptilinopus ( talk) 20:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
In the sexual reproduction section of the article, the two paragraphs containing the word "pycnidia" contain material on asexual reproduction, yet the section on asexual reproduction does not mention pycnidia. Before the world is permanently led astray by this, would some energetic, brave soul please sort this out? -- 75.164.155.194 ( talk) 19:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Removing section from article. We have 128 references employed in the article. This information is redundant at best per WP:NOTCATALOG. -- Zefr ( talk) 15:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Further reading
This Talk page exhibits classic problems with Wikipedia. as a relative newcomer to editing, I frequently see these problems.
User-duck ( talk) 22:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2022 and 4 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Babamachine ( article contribs).
In this article it cites the claim that 7% of the planets surface is covered in lichen, but the citation just goes to a new york time’s article that doesn’t cite an actual source. The assertion that 7% of the earth is covered in lichen is super common though and I keep finding it in other papers, but they all loop around to each other and I can’t find a primary source. Its kind of driving me crazy because this feels like a very falsifiable claim that should have a clear origination. 73.180.15.156 ( talk) 07:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The very first sentence of our article says:
Is this terminology standard? We don't have an article on composite organism, not even a redirect. I wanted to link it to some explanation but couldn't find anything anywhere.
Should we have an article titled “composite organism”? If this is terminology not explained elsewhere, we should explain it here, and shouldn't use it in the first sentence of the article.
— Mark Dominus ( talk) 19:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
It has been years since the third member of the lichen symbiosis was discovered. I don't know how to fix this, but maybe someone will. https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2016/Q3/yeast-emerges-as-hidden-third-partner-in-lichen-symbiosis.html#:~:text=%2D%20For%20nearly%20150%20years%2C%20lichens,or%20%22skin%22%20%2D%20yeast. 98.97.57.154 ( talk) 22:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Lichen was copied or moved into Draft:Lichens and air pollution with this edit on 12 December 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
I always thought the plural was simply "lichen", but shouldn't this be at the singular anyway? Tokerboy — Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 22 January 2003 (UTC)
We want the plural to be lichen because lichen is made up of multiple organisms, so it makes sense to call it lichen as a plural, I was recently doing this in a Biology class, and wrongly corrected my teacher (whoops) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JhePittsStop ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You may have noticed that it seldom works out very well to have lots of pictures evenly registered along one side, as that sort of sets the amount of text that needs to be present in each section. I like all the pictures, but arrangementg with some on the bottom may be a better arrangement. - Marshman 06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The article has had many modifications of images since the above discussion. I propose a gallery of 4 images, adjacent to the lead, showing clear examples of crustose, fruiticose, foliose, and squamulose growth forms. FloraWilde ( talk) 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Would someone be kind enough to provide a short list of common lichens with the taxonomy of their component fungi and algae? Such as reindeer moss and Iceland moss and Wolf moss and so forth? Or links if this is more practical? NaySay 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Mention of Reindeer Moss was added to the lead 1st paragraph. FloraWilde ( talk) 12:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
A paragraph was added saying some lichens have brown algae and yellow-green algal as phycobionts. Which lichens? Where is the reference? Heliocybe 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I know lichens are very slow growing, but how slow? I'd like to see information on the relative speed of growth as it varies with type and climate. BeeTea 03:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Aren't "form" and "morphology" redundant? Also I don't think the third paragraph, possible parasitism relates to this topic; it could be consolidated with the mention of the same thing in the first section. -- Ericjs 03:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if it could be useful to illustrate this article with this image? -- Slaunger ( talk) 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not a native speaker of English, so I looked up the word's pronunciation and while this page says it's /laɪ.kən/, my Cambridge Dictionary says it's /lɪtʃ.ən/, also saying that /laɪ.kən/ is American way of saying it? Is this true? 84.50.228.110 ( talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Please add the appropriate reference. Heliocybe ( talk) 19:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This article seems, in parts, to be written in an academic obscurantist style which is pretty jarring from Wikipedia's usual casual English style. Phrases like "the mutalistic “marriage” slowly became constant" are ridiculously overbaked for example. Other sections use technical buzzwords in places where common words would be clearer. 82.16.16.210 ( talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to add keywords somewhere in an article? e.g. I'd like to add "fungus hybrid" and "fungi hybrid" and "algae hybrid" (and alga and algal) as keywords so searches (in here or on search engines) of those terms will find the Lichen article, but I don't see an obvious way to add keywords without adding those phrases to the articles themselves. They're more-properly a symbiosis, but "hybrid" is not incorrect, either. Darr247 ( talk) 06:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to take a stab at improving this important article to WP:GA status. Some major reorganization is needed, as well as much additional material. If anyone has ideas on how to improve the article, please drop a note here at the talk page, or just be bold and edit the main page. I'm not a lichen expert, just a guy with a big stack of books. I also rerated the WikiProject Fungi template from B to C; needs to be better cited for B class. Sasata ( talk) 17:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase. You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Lichen (alga). Anybot ( contact operator) 17:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
So how did biologists learn that lichens were composite organisms? Or was this fact known since antiquity? (I seriously doubt that, based on what I've read of Pliny's Natural History, but it's possible.) -- llywrch ( talk) 17:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that Toby Spribille (University of Graz) and team has shown that lichens are composed of three elements ascomycete + basidiomycete + algae, I believe this needs to be added to the the content. J.P. (2016): Basidiomycete yeasts in the cortex of ascomycete macrolichens. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf8287 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollisterbulldawg2 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I was looking for something about Lichen in the wiki about what they eat/(energy sources) and by products. anyone one have an idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.193.213.25 ( talk) 10:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I was just wondering why no taxobox is incorparated? I understand that a lichen is really two species, although shouldn't at least the fungus be represented, especially in the light of fungi interchanging algal symbionts. Mike of Wikiworld ( talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Debivort's recent (6 June 2011) edit reversion has (perhaps as an oversight) ignored the fact that, assuming that reverted editor "Retallack" is the same "G.J. Retallack" who authored the paper in question, then there is no better qualified person to judge whether or not "... this claim ... has since been retracted by its author" - it is a bit hard to describe an edit as "uncited" when it is editing a citation of a valid publication by the editor themself.
On reading the paper, it seems to present a reasonable case for at least one Ediacaran organism (Dickinsonia) being either a fungus or a lichenised fungus, but does not offer a strong argument to resolve these possibilities. If (the editor) Retallak were to modify his edit to recognise this weaker claim, I would see no problem with it. FredV ( talk) 15:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
So, fungi invented farming long before we did! Huw Powell ( talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Was not Beatrix Potter (of Peter Rabbit fame) to first to claim that lichens are composite organisms? Why is she not recognized in this article. Her idea was unjustly rejected by her male peers; why is this injustice perpetuated in Wikipedia? 152.16.27.140 ( talk) 21:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)BWA
I'm not convinced the Haeckel image is the right one for the lead. He has emphasized the symmetry of the specimens, and as with many of his marine illustrations, probably greatly exaggerated: I've never seen lichens quite like that. Would it perhaps not be better to put his 'artistic' image down in a History section, and to use the next image (which is already very large) as the sole lead image? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Our article says "The algal or cyanobacterial cells are photosynthetic, and as in plants they reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide into organic carbon sugars to feed both symbionts." Here, "reduce" refers to redox. Presumably the fungal component does the opposite. Does anyone know a source on the overall carbon input/output for any lichen species, or for lichens in general? FloraWilde ( talk) 12:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a RS clear authority as to whether "lichenized fungus" refers to the entire lichen [2], or just to the fungal component? FloraWilde ( talk) 14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this isn't so much a matter of semantics as a matter of rhetoric. Synecdoche (referring to the whole by a part) is very common in language generally, so much so that we usually don't notice it, and in this case it certainly doesn't reflect any disagreement over what a lichen or a lichenized fungus actually is. Rather the synecdoche reflects a view that the classification of lichens should be based on the fungal partner rather than treating lichens as a distinct taxon in their own right. Thus on one view the whole entity is classified as a lichenized fungus rather than a combined organism, so the important part in this view, the lichenized fungus, is used to stand for the whole. Not surprisingly, a quick search through the issues of the British Lichen Society Bulletin I happen to have doesn't show a single use of "lichenized fungus", since the Society is devoted to lichens as a taxon distinct from fungi (they are lichenologists, not mycologists interested in lichenized fungi). Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
(This section is related to the section above.) I recently read there is a fungus (not named in the article) that is lichenized by two different photobionts (both algae, as I recall), but not at the same time, thereby creating what would be two entirely different lichens, except for the classification scheme of defaulting to the fungus. Does anyone know what the fungus is, and how the two different lichens are classified as being different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloraWilde ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The "lichenized fungus", Dendriscocaulon, is a genus of several different species by all measures other than the convention of classifying lichens by their fungal component, which is the only thing going. Please contribute to this article that does not neatly fit into the WP:Plant article template, and does not fit a taxobox into it very neatly. FloraWilde ( talk) 14:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Our article says, with RS, "Lichens are capable of surviving extremely low levels of water content ( poikilohydric)." This sentence is easy to source with other RS. But is there an actual authority, other than summary descriptions used as RS, that concludes all lichens are poikilohydric? FloraWilde ( talk) 13:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The article starts off "A lichen ( /ˈlaɪkən/, sometimes /ˈlɪtʃən/ ..." The characters used in a pronunciation guide can, and should, be intelligible to an elementary school student. Can anyone help fix this by use of more common special characters for pronunciation? FloraWilde ( talk) 14:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I put up a construction tag. I am doing a Plain English rewrite of the lead. Any essential technical term is defined in plain English followed by the technical term in parentheses, and any nonessential technical term has been moved to a section below. I will similarly start each section with plain English definitions, and move from this to technical info and terms per MOS. When I am done with the sections, I will go back to the article history and check each sentence had its content and sources preserved, so if you notice content was accidentally deleted, it will get restored (or you can stick it back in). FloraWilde ( talk) 14:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
In non-technical articles (See here and here) it would appear that Toby Spribille et al have found that lichens are a combination of two fungi with an alga, or a fungus, a yeast and an alga, which runs counter to the accepted structure of a lichen. I see no mention of this in the article. I am no expert on the subject, but if this recent discovery has any validity, I would have thought it at least would rate a mention, as it would require a rewriting of the entire article. Ptilinopus ( talk) 20:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
In the sexual reproduction section of the article, the two paragraphs containing the word "pycnidia" contain material on asexual reproduction, yet the section on asexual reproduction does not mention pycnidia. Before the world is permanently led astray by this, would some energetic, brave soul please sort this out? -- 75.164.155.194 ( talk) 19:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Removing section from article. We have 128 references employed in the article. This information is redundant at best per WP:NOTCATALOG. -- Zefr ( talk) 15:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Further reading
This Talk page exhibits classic problems with Wikipedia. as a relative newcomer to editing, I frequently see these problems.
User-duck ( talk) 22:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2022 and 4 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Babamachine ( article contribs).
In this article it cites the claim that 7% of the planets surface is covered in lichen, but the citation just goes to a new york time’s article that doesn’t cite an actual source. The assertion that 7% of the earth is covered in lichen is super common though and I keep finding it in other papers, but they all loop around to each other and I can’t find a primary source. Its kind of driving me crazy because this feels like a very falsifiable claim that should have a clear origination. 73.180.15.156 ( talk) 07:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The very first sentence of our article says:
Is this terminology standard? We don't have an article on composite organism, not even a redirect. I wanted to link it to some explanation but couldn't find anything anywhere.
Should we have an article titled “composite organism”? If this is terminology not explained elsewhere, we should explain it here, and shouldn't use it in the first sentence of the article.
— Mark Dominus ( talk) 19:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
It has been years since the third member of the lichen symbiosis was discovered. I don't know how to fix this, but maybe someone will. https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2016/Q3/yeast-emerges-as-hidden-third-partner-in-lichen-symbiosis.html#:~:text=%2D%20For%20nearly%20150%20years%2C%20lichens,or%20%22skin%22%20%2D%20yeast. 98.97.57.154 ( talk) 22:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)