I thought it was an art form. You know, if you eat what you think it is …

NO WAIT! That’s if you’re an ex-president. I keep getting that wrong. Probably something to do with pseudoscience, right?

Daniel B. Wheeler

And those gadgets will probably be able to tell a species with a percentage of probability – and mycology becomes a science built on statistics..

“An important question is, where does it leave us, if different species can’t be told apart by any macro- and micro characters at all?”

Nano-characters. So probably DNA.

Give it a couple of decades and there’ll be hand-held gadgets on the market that can DNA-fingerprint anything, maybe even sequence it completely.

Any in-depth study of C. cibarius has also got to establish mycorrhizal relationships. There is a site near me where C. formosus NEVER forms ridges, but right next to that site, C. formosus ALWAYS has ridges, at least for the last 15 years. To me, this is significant.

It’s possible that C. cibarius is species specific: associated with a single host. That could also explain why so few confirmed locations in the world have it. But if species specific, how many other species are out there?

Daniel B. Wheeler

to identify species as forms that are incompatible, seems like a proper thing to do. If that is the case regarding Cantharellus cibarius, I’m afraid the name cibarius needs to be discarded completely and replaced with new ones. I have a strong feeling that it’s not the most convenient procedure, and you still can’t be sure that some collections within the species can’t mate with others..

An important question is, where does it leave us, if different species can’t be told apart by any macro- and micro characters at all?

With cultivation of previously uncultivated species, the concept of species of species variety is coming more to the front. What was once considered a single species world-wide, is now known to be extremely limited in scope.

Some mycorrhizal species are known to be species specific, i.e. found with only a single species of host plant, such as Tuber gibbosum associating only with Pseudotsuga menziesii.

I can’t comment on C. cibarius because apparently I have never found it. Species collected here in Oregon and submitted to Dr. Eric Danell were identified as C. formosus and C. aurora-borealis. And even species found in nature may not always be associated with a single host species as proven by Dr. Danell’s production of sporocarps on Pinus, previously unknown (at least in Oregon) to associate with Pinus.

What great fun! The age-old question of who was right, the lumper or the splitter seems to prove that both were right … and wrong. So goes the scientific inquiry system.

Daniel B. Wheeler

Thanks Daniel, for your explanation.

But I refuse to beleive that the Friesian concept of Cantharellus cibarius excluded the ones growing in Sweden. In the Fries’ herbarium there are collections from Germany and Scotland, but I don’t know of any type collection.
That means trouble – you can’t just choose one collection and claim that it’s the only “true” cibarius and all others with some differences in DNA something else.
In Sweden, we have this yellow chanterelle growing with pine, spruce, and birch. These are probably different genotypes, and not equipped with exactly the same DNA, but none of them questioned as cibarius.

Well, time will tell if any taxonomist dares to propose new names for them, and is convincing enough to reach consensus. I don’t think that will ever happen, more likely is an acceptance for their status as forms or varieties of cibarius.

As I recall Dr. Danell, speaking many years ago at the North American Truffling Society, he stated that the original collection by Fries does not match ANY material from North America. Apparently, only 3 locations are currently known for C. cibarius: Finland, Netherlands, and a small piece of England.

Everything else is something else. That’s one of the big reasons we had to change the name of C. cibarius here in Oregon to C. formosus before it became the state mushroom (an excellent idea for other states/provinces to emulate!).

I think this is a subtle indication that what once was “known” is no longer “known”.

Neither, according to Dr. Danell, does C. cibarius form mycorrhizal associations with a large number of host speciees. When he grew fruiting bodies from the bottom of pots innoculated with C. cibarius on Pinus seedlings at Oregon State University, it came as a surprise to many (including Danell, I believe).

All the experiment proves was that C. cibarius could be cultivated, and that it would associate with Pinus under sterile conditions.

There are few such conditions in nature that I am aware of.

Daniel B. Wheeler

when a genotype of a species becomes another species.. I wouldn’t overestimate differences in DNA when it comes to Cantharellus cibarius, which has a large range of hosts, and a natural variety in DNA to get an optimal function for each host.
I my mind, this one doesn’t look different enough to be another species. Has Eric Danell claimed that Cantharellus cibarius doesn’t occur in Eastern Ontario?

But probably NOT C. cibarius, which, according to Dr. Eric Danell, is found in only 2-3 places in the world, based on DNA evidence. So what species is this one? Without much more DNA evidence, I can’t hazard a guess. Sorry!