Fruticose Roccellaceae
It was with much enthusiasm I received Aptroot and Schumm's (A&S) Roccellaceae book. The Roccellaceae is a large and complicated group of lichen fungi, but only in the last decade has much progress been regarding the taxonomy, phylogeny and classification of both the family Roccellaceae and the order Arthoniales (Ertz Tehler 2011; Tehler et al. 2004; Tehler Irestedt 2007; Tehler et al. 2009a, 2009b; Tehler et al. 2010) A well illustrated field guide would be an excellent complement to these scientific papers, and very useful to the interested lichen collector during field trips in areas where Roccellaceae grow. Sad to say, though, all my expectations were lost after only browsing the book. The first impression was confirmed when I read it more carefully. The book is littered with both editorial and factual flaws. Aptroot and Schumm are perpetuating a mixture of old, outdated and incorrect data (e.g. species distributions) with recent data from the latest research and investigations of the family Roccellaceae (Arthoniales) It is virtually impossible for a nonexpert of the group to distinguish between true and false. The title 'Fruticose Roccellaceae' is misleading, even if the subtitle contains, .or similar lichens' since the book also includes species from the family Opegraphaceae, and in some cases, even to families belonging to a different Class, the Lecanoromycetes. The work consists of a short introduction, key to species, names of Roccella (Table 1) followed by descriptions and pictures of species in alphabetical order, references and Index. In general, the editing and layout of the book is inconsistent and of low quality, giving an amateurish impression. Obviously, it has been touched by neither professional editors nor publishing house. This does not necessarily have to be negative, or reduce the value of the book, but unfortunately it does. The lack of proofreading is conspicuous. The book is disturbingly full of typing errors; page 19 alone contains seven typos and misspellings. Misspellings are normally only a nuisance that give a negative impression to a text, but sometimes they may be crucial and misleading. For example, in the key it says that Schizopelte lumbricoides is present on Guadeloupe Island however, S. lumbricoides is not, in fact, present on Guadeloupe, the French department in the Caribbean. What A&S actually mean is 'Guadalupe Island' off the coast of Mexico, but this mistake may not be obvious to a reader unfamiliar with the distribution of the various species in Roccellaceae.