Observation 128369: Gymnopilus P. Karst.

Proposed Names

50% (5)
Recognized by sight: on sallow
54% (4)
Recognized by sight
19% (2)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-03-04 08:48:21 PST (-0800)

We as humans, differ according to DNA and the environment, and suffer the influence of a whole ecosystem, where the climate is one significative factor, also the mushrooms thus should be treated. It’s incredible how nature is perfect, everything is balanced.
For example, here, all my observations so far spectabilis G / junionus are on Eucalyptus, why?
But I don’t agree that they should have different sp names according to a location, maybe just a var. xxx would be enough for specimens from a location that have a feature/features different from the general.

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-03-04 08:23:39 PST (-0800)

described Gymnopilus spectabilis var. junonius as a variety that was only smaller, with no difference in micro characters.

Fries has a description of spectabilis that looks the way we want it :-)

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-03-04 08:18:53 PST (-0800)

if they are the same species, then why vote one down?
how can the “same species” be active in one part of the world and not the other?
why do certain species of G. junonius/spectabilis bruise blue and others do not?
why do some of these same species fruit in clusters at the base of hardwoods and others solitary on conifers?

there are some problems with that paper.

it should not be used as the “definitive” guide to Gymnopilus by any means.

there was no micro posted.
most of those type specimens are 50+ years old.
there was no morphological data considered or described.

it is very well understood that the Gymnopilus genus is screwed up and all this paper did was confuse the issue even more.

it is important to start from square one…
more data, more data, more data.
more observations, more microscopy and more dna work must be done…
along with a host of other valuable information (wood types, substrate, time of year, location, etc…)

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-03-04 07:52:49 PST (-0800)

When I read Guzman-Davalos’ paper and look at the phylogram containing collections of spectabilis, junonius and pampeanus from France, Argentina, Finland, Belgium, Spain, Mexico, Australia, I beleive that junonius, spectabilis and pampeanus (as they are interpreted today!), are close enough to be the same species, yes.

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-03-04 05:30:29 PST (-0800)

you can host images on sites like imgur.com and flickr.com.

I see…
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-03-04 05:27:44 PST (-0800)

thank you Richard :) but your micro images are on internet?

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-03-04 05:22:34 PST (-0800)

if you look down, i had no idea how to either. lol
firstly, the picture has to be on the internet.
once you have the images internet location…
place a ! on both sides of the text.

Sorry to interrupt your busy minds…
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-03-04 05:20:19 PST (-0800)

It can seem an idiot question, but, how do you insert images on comments?

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-03-04 04:42:09 PST (-0800)

why would you vote down spectabilis and vote up junonius when spectabilis is the species name given by Jan Holec, in “The Genus Gymnopilus in the Czech Republic…?”
this is indeed a species from the Czech Republic.
is it your opinion that junonius and spectabilis are the same species regardless of where they fruit in the world?

By: Rocky Houghtby
2013-03-04 04:21:04 PST (-0800)

The description in Systema Mycologicum doesn’t sound very much like the organism we call G. junonius today. I wonder if Karsten and Lange’s descriptions are also radically different.

You’ve given me food for thought Irene, I thank you. Ive made several recent attempts at reading Fries description of A. junonius and have thus far been unable to so much as find it. Now I see that species fungorum has links to the page cited right inside taxa pages! Awesome!

Yes, Rocky
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-03-03 23:42:21 PST (-0800)

and the name junonius is also questionable. Fries described a tiny species, growing solitary:

By: Rocky Houghtby
2013-03-03 09:25:37 PST (-0800)

From the journal you linked-

The complex formed by G. junonius, G. pampeanus and G. spectabilis, considered as synonyms by some authors, has species with ellipsoid spores that are longer than 8 microns. Further studies are needed to elucidate if they represent a single variable species.

I beleive
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-03-03 09:17:49 PST (-0800)

that the current synonymization actually has been supported by Guzman-Davalos’ study:

By: Rocky Houghtby
2013-03-03 08:09:09 PST (-0800)

Can you check if the subhymenium is ramose or cellular to rule out G. armillatus?

It is my opinion that G. spectabilis and G. junonius were errantly synonymized. G. junonius contains psychoactive compounds. However, Macroscopically inseparable collections from the G. junonius species cluster from both western North America and Australia lack these compounds. I understand that this is not enough data to draw a clear conclusion, But one can see that the current concept of G. junonius is far from complete.

A vast majority of studies on Gymnopilus have simply failed to document sufficient microscopic data to establish inarguably distinct taxa. The matter of possible synonymy between the species in the G. junonius species cluster is further clouded by the lack of a valid type species for G. junonius. No viable genetic data can be harvested from Fries’ herbaria specimens and recent collections labeled as such are likely, in my opinion, to be the result of incomplete research.

I believe that Dr. Guzman-Davalos’ research has come closest to accurately establishing type species of Gymnopilus, But to the best of my knowledge she has yet to thoroughly describe G. junonius.

By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-03-03 07:44:10 PST (-0800)

what I thought. For moments I got panic with these changes.

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-03-03 07:14:39 PST (-0800)

It’s possible that most of the ring is lost

i see it…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-03-03 07:07:58 PST (-0800)

also, at maturity the ring-zone becomes less prominent.
“annulus (veil remnant) prominent,
about 5–15 mm broad, upright, membranaceous,
bright yellow to rusty yellow, partly missing at maturity and
remaining only as a disrupted fibrillose-tomentose annular
zone on stipe surface”

I don’t get why no one sees the ring
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2013-03-03 07:04:49 PST (-0800)

Look at the fourth pic. There are rests of it clearly visible.
It is fugacious. It was hot dry weather, it could have fallen off that it is not that prominent as usual. There are animals, small ones. Rich did microscopy. I never had any doubt about my ID nor had anyone else whom I showed the mushroom in fresh state.
Nevertheless, do you know anything close to it? I am open for it though.

Yes, junonius is the current name
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-03-03 06:57:10 PST (-0800)

but it should have a membranous ring, this one hasn’t..

So the mushroom proved me right ;)
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2013-03-03 06:50:04 PST (-0800)

Some said G. junonius has a fugative ring whereas G. spectabilis has a prominent ring.
But for years now the two names are synonyms. And the current correct name is G. junonius.

G. spectabilis
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-03-03 06:20:39 PST (-0800)

is a synonym. G. junonius is the older name.

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-03-03 06:17:58 PST (-0800)

there might not be a difference.
i am currently using…
“The Genus Gymnopilus in the Czech Republic with Respect to Collections from Other European Countries”
by: Jan Holec
which describes Gymnopilus spectabilis.
this is why i used that name.

Jan Holec also describes this species as lacking pleurocystidia…
which is different from Hesler’s observations.
i have not found any pleurocystidia on this observation, which is why i was hesitant to call it G. spectabilis/junonius.

Can anyone
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-03-03 06:02:13 PST (-0800)

explain me the difference between G. junionus and G. spectabilis?

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-03-02 14:29:51 PST (-0800)

to start.

spores =
9.3 × 5.8
8.5-10.9 × 5.1-6.2

spore range is right for G. spectabilis.

spores (oil)

basidia )400x) 4-spored

cheilocystidia (oil)

gill trama (oil) sub-parallel

Looking forward to a result
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2013-02-13 16:35:39 PST (-0800)

if it is able to come to an ID.
I still think it is a bit unusual junonius. But we’ll see.

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-02-13 16:29:50 PST (-0800)


Have sent it today.
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2013-02-13 16:11:50 PST (-0800)

Package is on its way.

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-02-12 15:57:23 PST (-0800)



By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2013-02-12 15:54:43 PST (-0800)

No, I don’t. If you like ..

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-02-12 15:51:03 PST (-0800)

you going to scope these?
i will, if you don’t want to…

We do not have G. luteus here.
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2013-02-12 04:54:52 PST (-0800)

And the rest of Gymnopilus doesn’t fit. I cannot think of any other species. Plus it tastes bitter.

The ring
By: Rocky Houghtby
2013-02-12 04:43:12 PST (-0800)

In your specimens is cortinate. The gestalt here is superficially similar to what we call G. luteus in N. America, But the coloration and pileus decoration are wrong for that taxa.

In the fourth pic
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2013-02-12 04:23:13 PST (-0800)

you can see the ring. Fruitbody is old and it was very dry during collecting.
Also they grew more or less cespitose out of crevices of this old lying sallow stems.

G. junonius
By: Rocky Houghtby
2013-02-12 04:19:18 PST (-0800)

Has a membranous annulus and fruits in caespitose clusters, typically at the base of deadstands and stumps.

Created: 2013-02-12 04:04:16 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2017-03-05 19:15:23 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 345 times, last viewed: 2017-06-15 07:43:14 PDT (-0700)
Show Log