|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||11.91||2||(Dave W,Mycowalt)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I checked the obs. that you mentioned and I agree with you and I.G. that your B.Hortonii may be a new variety or subspecies and can possibly be an example of continuing evolution. Perhaps the alleles in L. h. var. h are coding for furcate gills in various areas of the pileus and/or stipe thereby changing the phenotype. If so, under the rules of taxonomy would a new subspecies or variety be created? Or would the population/species change over time thus maintaining its original epithet? If I remember correctly a new species would created. Incidentally I checked B.B. andR. and found no mention of reticulation in B. hortonii. Nice photos.
with what appear to be forked gills, I’ll examine closely to be certain it’s a true forking (and not just edges stuck together), and preserve some material. Problem is… it may be awhile before a serious mycologist decides to study this type.
So many specimens, so many possible variants, so few “experts”
Check out my observation of Boletus hortonii, a distinct species that I know well. Then note the stipes and try to find a description of that species noting reticulations.
to solve this would be to send a specimen to a Mycologist willing to study it. Still disagree as to whether or not the furcate gills were never observed. Seems illogical, but now I’m wondering who is more stubborn. You or I?
that “mushrooms are humbling.” Nobody is immune from this, even the experts. It may be that the type was not often collected/studied when immature, or that the forking is in general variable. Variability of a given trait within a species concept is actually quite common with mushrooms.
On the other hand, this may be a bona fide variety of hibbardae that is currently undocumented. Amateurs like us sometimes contribute observations that help sort out this type stuff.
For the time being, these type mushrooms, gills forked or not, fit my general concept of hibbardae var. hibbardae well enough for me to lump them all together under this name. But I am less confident than previously about the ones with forked gills. Like I had said, hoping to study this when I get a chance.
read about studying mushrooms states that one should pick them in various stages of development so that he/she can observe the features as they mature. With this in mind, do you really believe that experts have failed to notice something as definable as furcate gills in different species. I don’t.
It would instead simply mean that the forked gills had not previously been observed on this species. This does not rule out the possibility that the mushrooms seen here do represent a different species. But in the absence of any other species name that seems to currently apply to these grayish coconut-odored milkies (to my knowledge), one is left with two options: “Lactarius” or “lactarius hibbardae var. hibbaradae.” Since the forking of the gills seems to be the only trait that does not fit the description of hibbardae, I think it’s reasonable to use this name along with limited confidence.
Or, one may try to obtain original Lactarius monographs and spend some time rooting through the details.
Here’s what I suspect is the case… just my best guess. Notice that the ones with forked gills also have pale immature-looking gills. Ones with darker more mature gills seem to lack the forks. Phil, your own two obses from SV are a good example. Not saying they definitely represent the same species. But this does support the hypothesis that hibbardae var. hibbardae has pale gills which may be forked at first, and the forking disappears as the gills mature. Perhaps as the gills expand in size the joint at the fork rips/fades/shrinks. Just an idea.
At any rate, it’s a significant thing that you pointed out. In the future, I’ll try to examine these (hibbardae) in developmental stages to test my hypothesis. I have two dependable patches that I visit occasionally.
some other species. I can find no references to L. hibbardae var. hibbardae possessing gills that are forked.
Therefore I would venture to state that these are not said species. In B.B.H. the authors make mention of species with varying amounts of gill forking. I don’t believe that they would deliberately omit such a distinguishing and diagnostic tool.
is rarely something that results in definitive closure. Note that there is no such MO rating as 100% for any proposal.
The forked gills are an interesting thing to point out, Phil. It appears to me that either hibbardae var. hibbardae/mammosus includes forms with forked gills, or the gray-capped ones with the coconut odor represent some other species.
I doubt these represent L. mutabilis.
and I have picked in the same location, and I considered L. mammosus for one of my obs, but couldn’t be definitive about it.
Lactarius mammosus. Odor like coconut.
show forking. Check L. Mutabilis
Created: 2012-10-29 07:02:31 GMT (+0000)
Last modified: 2015-02-16 01:41:29 GMT (+0000)
Viewed: 148 times, last viewed: 2017-06-14 13:27:59 BST (+0100)