Observation 113561: Gymnopilus viridans (Murrill) Hesler
When: 2012-10-15
Herbarium specimen reported
0 Sequences


Interwoven, the pictures dont do it justice, some water got on the lens, so its a bit blurry.
Interwoven, the pictures dont do it justice, some water got on the lens, so its a bit blurry.
SEM Macro
Gill Cross section
Gill cross section, zoom on one gill.
Gill cross section, zoom on one gill.
Gill cross section, zoom on one gill.
Gill cross section, zoom on one gill.
Context/pileipellis/cross section
Context/pileipellis/cross section, zoom
Context/pileipellis/cross section, zoom
Pileipellis zoom, surface of pileus

Proposed Names

-31% (3)
Recognized by sight
Based on microscopic features: Spores 5.5×8.5 roughened with very tiny warts; more or less elliptical.
Based on chemical features: KOH red then turning black on cap and stem.
5% (4)
Recognized by sight
Based on microscopic features
8% (5)
Recognized by sight
Based on microscopic features
58% (5)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: ocheraceous staining, on conifer in WA, isabelline gill color, thick stipe larger below.
Used references: Richard Kneal Id’d this one. NASoG pg. 81
Based on microscopic features: Spore size and shape, pileus trama

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
The Microscopy was preliminary and old its being replaced in the next week funny enough.
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2014-09-17 00:59:15 ADT (-0300)

Gymnopilus ventricosus occurs here, and that is the species that often gets misidentified as BLG’s .it looks a lot like junonius but it doesnt contain tryptamine alkaloids, there has been no proof of the bluing G. junonius/spectabilis in WA other than a few collection of my own, I have not seen at least any hard proof that they exist west the rockies.. Theres many different sequences running on those names, three which appear to de distinctively different using Genetic testing. But yeah thats Gyms for ya.

There is no point arguing further because this collection is going in for proper micro and DNA sequencing and clearly there needs to be more micro done.. I will get a much stronger case going as this will be one of the species for a full workup at the WWB herbarium.

I dont know who these prominent mycologists are, it may be nice to talk to them. Also Micheal Wood has done so much wonderful work on the greater fungi, there is no way he has the specialty knowledge of everything, especially that is Gymnopilus taxonomy, Hes the man, but like I say later, practically no one knows (very much including me) what the heck is happening with gyms, its getting worked out slowly, but the old descriptions with old microscope measuring techniques, lack of photos and confusingly written monographs on the subject are really the cause, but its really cool to read some of the new Gym papers where DNA has really helped.

I have two additional collections which are much better, but without micro. check them out.

From the additional hours of micro i have done and not uploaded (because im not finished) there are only 4 spored basidia, no 2 spored -pointing to viridans. and also lack of pleurocystidia which also points away from junonius.

Anyone who says they know the distribution of Gymnopilus is crazy, theres so much studying to be done and so much complex work that no one knows the distribution and true species but a few pro pro mycologists who work on the australian gyms, Not only ITS 1,2 but LR7 and other regions will be sequenced and compared with other collections.

Micheal wood
By: Leighton Bankes (paducahovoids)
2014-09-16 19:56:56 ADT (-0300)

says they do, along with several other prominent mycologists from the area(see the photo list). He doesn’t say bluing, I doubt he would even mention that feature. You should consider labelling your microscopy http://www.mykoweb.com/CAF/species/Gymnopilus_junonius.html

Bluing Gymnopilus spectabilis/junonius doesnt appear to occur in the PNW.
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2014-09-14 19:46:19 ADT (-0300)

Also Those are not pleurocystidia, those are basidioles.

This was one of my first microscopy, so the spores need to be remeasured from a print, and also many other things need to be examined,

spectabilis is a better fit than viridans
By: Leighton Bankes (paducahovoids)
2014-09-14 16:15:15 ADT (-0300)
I agree with Rich’s initial assesment. I’ll tell you why. The spore dimensions are very close, Hesler cites 8-10 × 4.5-5.5 I believe I see pleurocysitdia in Calebs micrographs. Hesler cites no Pleurocystidia for viridans. Are those not brown basidioles I see in one micrograph? Hesler notes that feature for spectabilis but doesn’t mention it for viridans. The spore

size is off. One could argue that the discrepancy is to be expected, but consider this. Calebs spore measurements
are 8.5×5.5 and Heslers viridans is listed as 7-8.5×4.5-5, meaning these would represent the maximum possible
length and more than the maximum width cited by Hesler. Hesler cites “stipe reaching 6 cm” That is 2.4 inches.
these seem quite a bit larger than that. “pileus reaching 8 cm broad” , 3.2 inches. Gymnopilus viridans seems to
represent a fruitbody with a campestroid habit (short and stout) and some of these secimens seems quite tall and

i didn’t think…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-05-13 07:23:17 ADT (-0300)

the observation could get any better…

A year later
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2013-11-08 04:15:52 AST (-0400)
Thanks Blood
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2013-03-15 20:13:00 ADT (-0300)
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-03-15 19:16:58 ADT (-0300)
Not sure, depends if G. junonius actually grows here…
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2013-03-15 10:39:46 ADT (-0300)

Looks very promising for G. viridans!

By: Rocky Houghtby
2013-03-15 10:12:36 ADT (-0300)

Are there any other large, green staining Gymnopilus in WA?

Despite being vague and “murrill-y”, the description is actually a great fit. It irks me that Murrill did not record the color of the pileus at all. I spent two hours trying to find where the type collection is housed so you can compare it. The university of Washington does not have it in their database, but that does not mean it is not there. Hesler looked at it too, so the type may be in TN.

I have had very bad luck searching herbarium databases lately. There needs to be a universal, international database of fungal herbaria and the collections contained therein.

I believe that this is a good representative of an underdescribed species. Since Murrill had a proclivity for describing new species from existing taxa, we should make an earnest effort to A) indispustably demonstrate that this is G. viridans, B) record every possible feature of your collection and compare its genetic data to other large Gymnopilus.

Last collection was found in 1912?
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2013-03-15 04:29:23 ADT (-0300)

How certain are you guys of this ID. it seems like this thing has jumped around a lot.

I thought
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2013-03-15 04:09:38 ADT (-0300)

Richard ID’d this one as G. spectabilis. Interesting, i will have to look into this further. Excellent collection though, glad i have some in the herbarium to research.

By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2012-10-19 05:01:02 ADT (-0300)

Claims of “inactive Gyms” could also be confusion with G. ventricosus since they are so macroscopically similar. The primary difference is the presence of caulocystidia in spectabilis/junonius.

The real confusion comes with the PNW as G. ventricosus is limited in range as compared to the more cosmopolitan spectabilis/junonius. I would think that specimens from the PNW would be the most important to study for this very reason.

I bet that specimens which would fit Fries’s concept (once somebody actually finds them) of Agaricus junonius will turn out to be synonymous with Hesler’s G. spectabilis. Who knows though!? Maybe I’m totally wrong. :shrug:

I Agree
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2012-10-19 04:14:26 ADT (-0300)

with you Blood, but could the inactive ones be a variant of the junonius, although given the range that we find these a separate species would make more sense, there clearly is something going on…

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-10-18 18:33:20 ADT (-0300)

since there are reports of apparent inactivity of west coast junonius…
these are obviously active.
with that being said…
maybe what we are dealing with is two distinct species…
junonius AND spectabilis??

Mating Compatiblity Tests …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2012-10-18 00:03:10 ADT (-0300)

Perhaps mating compatiblity testing along with phyllogenetic testing could help elucidate speciation.

I think I’m going to save a Gymnopilus junonius sample from obs 111279.

Also, I thought spectabilis was depreciated. And also, how does Fries’s concept of A. junonius differ from Hesler’s of G. spectabilis? Hesler really didn’t elaborate on Fries’s concept or collections. I know it was in 1821 or so that he described it, but that’s all I’ve gone into it.

Hesler states…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-10-17 01:26:24 ADT (-0300)

“Efforts have been made to study authentic collections of G. junonius, but material presenting the Friesian concept has not been made available to me. Further inquiry into the status of this entity is desireable; meantime, we are using the binomial G. spectabilis.”

By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2012-10-17 01:19:20 ADT (-0300)

I thought they are synonyms. any links to the differences in micro or maco?

i would…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-10-17 01:13:46 ADT (-0300)

call it G. spectabilis, not G. junonius.
that takes care of the whole debate.

My theory
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2012-10-17 00:58:57 ADT (-0300)

Yeah Ive seen many reports that they are inactive on the west coast, however, This find shows that they are. I believe that this is the true Gymnopilus junonius, and the west coast often sees a much more popular inactive variant of this species, which looks the same but isnt active.

Interesting …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2012-10-17 00:34:30 ADT (-0300)

This seems to dispel the idea the West coast junonioid specimens are mostly inactive. Ehrlich’s reagent would help support this.

By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2012-10-17 00:11:18 ADT (-0300)

Yes thats what i mean, thanks. I agree. spectabilis it is.

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-10-16 23:50:56 ADT (-0300)

you mean 8.5 × 5.5.
also, i’m pretty sure this is spectabilis based on the cheilocystidia and bluing reaction.

Created: 2012-10-16 01:09:58 ADT (-0300)
Last modified: 2014-09-14 19:46:39 ADT (-0300)
Viewed: 1023 times, last viewed: 2017-10-14 13:54:31 ADT (-0300)
Show Log