Observation 113359: Gymnopilus peliolepis (Speg.) Singer

When: 2012-10-13

Collection location: Gainesville, Florida, USA [Click for map]

Who: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)

Specimen available

Proposed Names

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
annular zone…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-10-17 09:29:41 CDT (-0500)

G. peliolepis is described as having a cortinoid veil.
“Cortinoid veils either soon disappear, i.e. they are evanescent, or remain as an indistinct fibrillose one on the stem.”
thanks for the comments guys.

Agreed …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2012-10-16 01:02:28 CDT (-0500)

It is definitely the best macroscopic match, annulus aside. I went to the key for sect Gymnopilus since they have similar spore sizes, and it still did not have any close match. Some KOH would also reaffirm this ID too; it should react with a ferruginous color.

Since Hesler had measurements for both chelio and pleurocystidias, those had to be Singer’s measurements on the fresh specimens as that would seem the only reasonable conclusion. It surprises me he didn’t put that in a footnote or something though.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2012-10-15 23:20:31 CDT (-0500)

Doesn’t support the organization of the genus Gymnopilus as proposed by Hesler. Also in the forward to mycologia 3, Hesler himself stresses the variability of veil remnants in Gymnopilus. G. peliolepis in particular is described with a cortinate veil as opposed to the partially membranous veil featured by the other taxa in subgenus Annulati.
In my opinion, the position of G. peliolepis in subgenus Annulati is unclear. The situation is further confused by the fact that Hesler’s brief treatment of this species is based entirely on a single collection by Singer that was poorly dried.

If you disregard the lack of an annular zone, this collection lines up very well with the macroscopic description of G. peliolepis. I fear the microscopic description isn’t very credible due to the fact that Hesler mentions in his notes that he was unable to find cheilocystidia yet he describes the size and shape. How is that possible?

I blame it on Singer.

Persistent veil remnants …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2012-10-15 22:00:02 CDT (-0500)

I thought G. peliolepis was in subgenus Annulati, which all have persistent veil remnants. Your specimens look like they both lack annular deposits, which points towards subgenus Gymnopilus.

Did you see any specimens with a persistent veil? What about spore pics? Here’s the only photo I found close to G. peliolepis, and two of the specimens still have annular deposits.


Created: 2012-10-13 19:31:40 CDT (-0500)
Last modified: 2012-10-19 20:51:20 CDT (-0500)
Viewed: 293 times, last viewed: 2018-02-19 08:56:24 CST (-0600)
Show Log