Corella = Cora? – Hygrophoraceae The type of Corella is Corella brasiliensis, which is now synonymous with Cora glabrata, so there remains a single orphaned species, Corella melvinii. Solution: redirect to Cora and mention orphan in taxonomy.
Eopyrenula R.C.Harris (1973) – Dacampiaceae Classification is disputed; Lücking et al. 2016 instead consider them as Pezizomycotina incertae sedis, which was followed by Revisions of British and Irish Lichens v.37 2023; Pezizomycotina needs a major update/expansion/overhaul.
Hosseusia Gyeln. 1940 – Pannariaceae Lücking et al . (2016) say "This genus was erroneously placed in Pannariaceae in the original classification" and place it in Lecanoromycetes genera incertae sedis. Everyone else still puts it in Pannariaceae.
Parmostictina = Pseudocyphellaria? Precise classification seems to be unresolved; molecular results using different loci are ambiguous... "The erratic placement of Parmostictina and Podostictina, when using different data types and inference methods, exhibits patterns found in other unrelated groups of organisms with unresolved phylogenetic relationships" doi:10.1038/s41598-019-45455-x (2019)
Pectenia P.M.Jørg. (2014) – Pannariaceae Circumscribed in 2014, and further expanded in 2017 (doi:10.1016/j.funbio.2016.12.001). But IF says the genus name is illegitimate, and places it in synonymy with Calogaya. Despite this, it "accepts" (=green) all four proposed Pectenia species. This affects an existing article, Degelia plumbea (= Pectenia plumbea?). Solution = ?
Podostictina Clem. (1909) – Peltigeraceae Precise classification seems to be unresolved; molecular results using different loci are ambiguous... "The erratic placement of Parmostictina and Podostictina, when using different data types and inference methods, exhibits patterns found in other unrelated groups of organisms with unresolved phylogenetic relationships" doi:10.1038/s41598-019-45455-x (2019)
Polyozosia A.Massal. (1855) – Lecanoraceae from Revisions of British and Irish Lichens: "Kondratyuk et al. (2019) claimed that the genus Polyozosia A. Massal. (1855) has priority over Myriolecis, and made a number of new combinations into that genus. However, the name change serves no useful purpose, and the phylogenetic research on which their work was based needs further examination."
Trizodia Laukka (2009) – Leotiomycetidae (borderline lichen) fungus forming a tripartite association with Sphagnum and cyanobacteria; "closely related to the Candelariomycetes" says doi:10.1007/s13225-018-0417-5
Xyloschistes Vain. ex Zahlbr. (1903) – Stictidaceae IF says the genus name is invalid b/c of Art. 38.1(a) (Shenzhen) (description or diagnosis of the taxon must be provided in Latin ... and must be effectively published), and says its single (rare, Finnish) species Xyloschistes platytropa is invalid b/c of Art. 35.1 (Shenzhen) (must be associated with a type specimen at the time of publication). However, name is still used in the literature (including the standard lichen/fungal classification compilations), including a listing in Finland's 2019 Red List.
need to investigate if "Ascomycota incertae sedis" is equivalent to "Pezizomycotina incertae sedis" (= we don't have DNA for this taxon and don't really have a clue where this belongs)
My personal conclusion on the issues with so many Kondratyuk (et al.) genera: Kondratyuk has contributed prolifically to molecular studies in the past couple decades. Yet, some of his earlier work was found to be inconsistent, as contamination with extraneous DNA invalidated several of his proposed genera. As a result, the lichenological community now views his new genus publications with caution, ranging from critical skepticism to complete rejection. How should these be presented on Wikipedia?
Byssocaulon Mont. 1835 – Chrysotrichaceae from Lücking et al. 2016 (p.389): "Leprocaulon Nyl. (syn.: Byssocaulon Mont.) (12 spp.). Changed classification and new synonymy (Lendemer & Hodkinson 2013; this paper). Molecular: Yes. Notes. Byssocaulon was listed under Chrysotrichaceae (Lumbsch & Huhndorf 2010), but the type appears to be congeneric with Leprocaulon. " Despite this, IF accepts Byssocaulon and its type, Byssocaulon niveum. Solution: inform Kirk/IF
Epiphloea Trevis. (1880) – Collemataceae Epiphloea has been (pretty much conclusively) synonymized with Leptogium (doi:10.1017/S0024282915000353, although IF and MycoBank don't seem to be aware. Revisions of British and Irish Lichens (2020) maintains "as a monophyletic genus distinct from Leptogium based on its widely divergent morphological features." Solution: Inform IF, redirect to Leptogium and mention this synonymy in taxonomy section.
Hueella Zahlbr. (1926) – Pannariaceae Jøergensen rejected this name in 2000 (doi:10.2307/1223983); he mentions the rejected name in a pub 8 years later, confirming its ongoing rejection doi:10.1017/S0024282908007780. Despite IF's "overlooking/acceptance", this is not a used taxon. Solution: delete name from lists, inform Paul Kirk @ IF, redirect to whatever synonym they ultimately assign. Mention non-acceptance of Hueella in Pannariaceae.
Jesmurraya S.Y.Kondr., Fedorenko, S.Stenroos, Kärnefelt, Elix, Hur & A.Thell (2012) – Teloschistaceae (disputed); this is not a valid taxon, despite IF's "overlooking/acceptance"; solution: inform Paul Kirk/IF, wait ...
Kudratoviella S.Y.Kondr., L.Lőkös, Kärnefelt & A.Thell (2022) – Teloschistaceae After having been proposed by Kondratyuk et al. in 2022, this genus name has not showed up since in the literature. It's not recognized by IF or MycoBank, and the MB identifier assigned to it in the protologue doesn't work. Solution: remove mention from Teloschistaceae page, inform IF of above.
Paraingaderia Ertz & Tehler (2011) – Opegraphaceae In 2023 (doi:10.1017/S0024282922000408) the original authors of this genus propose to adopt a more expansive concept of Ingaderia and synonymise the monospecific Paraingaderia with Ingaderia. IF still accepts Paraingaderia and its species. Solution: Postpone publishing draft, wait for any reactions in the literature.
Sporhaplus H.B.P.Upadhyay (1964) – Roccellaceae lichenicolous; Diederich et al. (2018) say that Sporhaplus is the anamorph of Keratosphaera; Hyde et al. (2011) say it's an anamorph of Mazosia (Hyde KD, McKenzie EHC, KoKo TW. (2011). Towards incorporating anamorphic fungi in a natural classification – checklist and notes for 2010. Mycosphere 2(1), 1–88.) Solution: delete name from lists, inform Paul Kirk @ IF, redirect to whatever synonym they ultimately assign.
Squamacidia Brako (1989) – Ramalinaceae As doi:10.1002/tax.12075 explains, Squamacidia is no longer used because it was reclassified as a synonym of Triclinum. Originally, Triclinum was described by Fée in 1825 with the single species T. cinchonarum. Since no syntypes of T. cinchonarum were available, Jørgensen designated an illustration from the original description as the lectotype and selected a specimen of Physcidia endococcina as the epitype. Brako had previously classified P. endococcina as a variety of Squamacidia janeirensis, which served as the type species of Squamacidia. However, with the priority of Triclinum established in 1825, Squamacidia was reclassified under Triclinum, making cinchonarum the valid name for the type species. IF hasn't caught up yet. Solution: redirect to Phyllopsora, use above as additional synonymy source, remove from Ramalinaceae genera list; inform Paul Kirk @ IF.
Bryoclavula H.Masumoto & Y.Degawa (2020) – Cantharellales, more specifically, in the newly expanded and reorganized Hydnaceae; the outdated family article needs a 2025 update and a lichen tag Family still needs update/expansion
Buelliastrum Zahlbr. (1930) – Lecanoromycetes contains two little-known species described from China in 1930, and hardly any literature presence afterwards. Bare-bones stub probably unavoidable. Done
Creographa A.Massal. (1860) – Graphidaceae A proposal was made to conserve Phaeographis against Creographa and a bunch of other older names (doi:10.2307/25065924, which was later accepted (doi:10.1002/tax.591029), but IF still accepts this genus name and its two species. Done (not sure what's going on with the conservation proposal, but the genus name seems to be accepted and used by various sources)
Dictyographa Müll.Arg. (1893) – Opegraphaceae The existing redirect refers to the (nom. illegit.) name Dictyographa Darb. (1897) a synonym of Pentagenella, so a real genus page needs to be made for Dictyographa Done
Rhexophiale Th.Fr. (1860) – Sagiolechiaceae Ertz & Tønsberg (2021) say "The genus Rhexophiale was reintroduced for Sagiolechia rhexoblephara by Henssen (1995) based on differences in the ontogeny of its ascomata compared to S. protuberans. However, phylogenetic results placed Rhexophiale within a clade with Sagiolechia phaeospora and S. protuberans, challenging the distinction of the two genera (Spribille et al. 2020 doi:10.1017/S0024282920000079)." OK; I mentioned this stuff with these sources and stubbed the article Done
Thallinocarpon E.Dahl (1950) – Lichinaceae "Jørgensen (2007b) reestablished the genus Thallinocarpon E.Dahl to accommodate the larger species of Gonohymenia (i.e. G. iodopulchra-group) which are said to differ in the fruit bodies from the type species of the genus, G. algerica" ... "the relationship and delimitation of the genera Lichinella, Gonohymenia and Thallinocarpon is a difficult matter and a novel treatment based on a thorough revision is needed" from doi:10.1007@978-3-8274-2299-64; some sources (e.g. Nimis, Lichens of Italy) subsume Thallinocarpon and Gonohymenia into Lichinella. Done
Done
Family still needs update/expansion