Observation 133451: Chroogomphus fulmineus (R. Heim) Courtec.

When: 2011-12-04

Collection location: Braga, Portugal [Click for map]

Who: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)

No specimen available


Neuroterus quercusbaccarum galls on the oak leaf

Proposed Names

60% (3)
Recognized by sight
65% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: brighter orange than rutilus

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
I’m so stupid
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-05-12 13:53:07 PDT (-0700)

that I’m always looking for google images, and I didn’t look for C. fulmineus yet. This is certainly C. fulmineus.

The picture
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-05-12 13:28:04 PDT (-0700)
is no III in Pl.1 in the journal

almost at the bottom of the margin to the left.

You could be right if they had a drying specimen as a model when it was painted (no colour photo back in 1934). I think the flesh tends to be paler then too.

I didn’t see
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-05-12 13:14:20 PDT (-0700)

the picture you are referring, where is it? If so I agree 100%, but maybe they just have waited too long to take a shot. They change the colour after picking, and become more red vinaceous.

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-05-12 13:09:33 PDT (-0700)

it was the picture that disturbed me, a dark vinaceous red species with pale flesh. Weird.
If I had to make a representative picture, with just one colour form, I would have chosen to make it bright orange if that is how it differs from others..

I found this
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-05-12 11:39:25 PDT (-0700)

description different from the first. Why do you say it doesn’t look right for my species? Thank you BTW, it’s the first time I find a description of C. fulmineus, with the “smaller” point, I had read about the colours only, didn’t find a GOOD description.

You will need
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-05-12 09:42:00 PDT (-0700)

microscopy to start with! I don’t beleive it’s the chinese confusus you have there, but still something different from rutilus.
I think it could be what has been called fulmineus in your area, but there’s also a possibility that fulmineus and britannicus are synonyms, that’s why I suggested both names.

I was mistaken about which name was the oldest, and it wasn’t Courtequisse who described fulmineus first. I’m not sure that he interpreted it right either.
I found the original description here (Heim 1934):
It starts at page 68, and it has a picture in Pl.I at the end of the book. Not much details, but somehow it doesn’t look right for your species..

I read
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-05-12 07:29:45 PDT (-0700)

the description of Chroogomphus confusus from China, the description is identical to this one, what do you think about?

About C. brittanicus, the pileus is larger on these, up to ±4cm. I don’t know, but the C. confusus seems to match better than this.

Sorry Irene
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-05-12 07:22:25 PDT (-0700)

I hadn’t read your first comment. But this really could be a different specie of Chroogomphus, because they are always much smaller than C. rutilus, always have that bright orange tones and the cap is always convex, except on this one.

About C. fulmineus, it’s said that they coexist here between C. rutilus, and that is not easy to differentiate them.

Irene what features have
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-05-12 06:55:55 PDT (-0700)

the Chroogomphus britannicus?

Oh no…
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-05-12 06:50:27 PDT (-0700)

There are only two possibilities: or I’m confusing the photos, because I find lactarius in that same place all years, and the true Lactarius photo is one of my lost ones, or if I ate it, I saw the milk exuding, because I always test it, and I would note a different flavour (from carrots flavour) when eating. I had these photos in a folder named Lactarius Deliciosus, so the confusion, if so, was made some time ago… and now I didn’t thought or look again to them. In fact looking for the gills colour and being decurrent, resembles Chroogomphus, and we have that orange C. here, but I’m used to see them orange just when very young (or not, maybe just smaller), I have seen lots of them, but the caps are always convex. Another strange thing is that the numeration of the photos is 1st the lay down specimen photo and then the cap photo, which reinforces the “confusion theory”, maybe I have placed it again there (and so didn’t eat it).

Chroogomphus for sure
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-05-12 04:37:04 PDT (-0700)

but no need to worry, they are all edible too :-)

By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-05-12 03:41:20 PDT (-0700)

This is Lactarius for certain… you don’t need to vote :) I ate it.

I’m confused
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-05-12 01:58:54 PDT (-0700)

This paper doesn’t mention fulmineus..:

Instead, they have noted that a separate clade originally labeled rutilus, might be britannicus.
C. britannicus is described as a very small species. The original description starts here:

The concept of fulmineus might be the same as britannicus, but could just as well be only an extreme colour form of rutilus (Courtequisse and other french mycologists have always been good at separating species on subtle and variable characters).

Created: 2013-05-11 16:06:15 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2013-05-12 13:53:18 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 120 times, last viewed: 2017-10-25 05:50:58 PDT (-0700)
Show Log