Lichenologists since Montagne (1852) have generally accepted that the North American and South American species belonged to the same genus, but not to the same species, and also not to Montagne’s genus (Desmazieria). For a long time (1861Trevisan, V. G. 1861. Ueber Atestia, eine neue Gattung der Ramalineen aus Mittel-Amerika. Flora 4:49-53.–1969Follmann, G.and S. Huneck. 1969. Mitteilunge uber Flechteninhaltsstoffe. LXI. Zur Chemotaxonomie der Flechtenfamilie Ramalinaceae. Willdenowia 5:181-216.), they were treated as different species in the genus Ramalina, classified either in a subgenus, or section, or series referred to as Desmazieria.<"Rundel1978" />, but also later became known as the “Ceruchis Group.”Bemdz, G., J. Santesson and C. W. Wachtmeister. 1965. Studies on the chemistry of lichens. 20. The chemistry of the Ramalina ceruchis group. Acta Chem. Scand. 19:1185-1187. Ramalina homalea in this group consisted of two or more chemotypes, one with “deposit” related to efflorescence associated with the diterpene (-)-16 α-hydroxykaurane (ceruchdiol), and the other, no deposit, indicated to have, in addition to the diterpenes, divaricatic acid based on a report by Mason Hale; divaricatic acid has since been determined to be the chemotype of the type (Menzies) specimen., while it may be noted that Ramalina homalea, which was erroneously referred to as having the diterpene chemistry, was recognized as a new species of Vermilacinia by Richard Spjut in 1987 by annotation labels on specimens, and later in a manuscript peer reviewed 1990–1991;, however, the species was described in Niebla by Peter Bowler in 1994 without accounting for the type of Niebla homalea, or providing a description for the species.Bowler, P. A., R. E. Riefner, Jr., P. W. Rundel, J. Marsh & T.H. Nash, III. 1994. New species of ‘‘Niebla‘‘ (Ramalinaceae) from western North America. Phytologia 77: 23–37.
