Observation 138063: Gymnopilus luteoviridis Thiers

When: 2013-06-11

Collection location: Big Thicket, Hardin Co., Texas, USA [Click for map]

Who: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)

No specimen available

Growing on woody debris in the Turkey Creek Unit.
Caps up to 2 cm across.
Spore print bright rusty.
Spores ~ 6.0-7.0 X 5.0-6.1 microns and moderately warted.
Cap and spores a little small but perhaps due to the immaturity of the collection.
G. fulvosquamulosus at least appears to be a southern species….and with tawny scales.

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Rocky, yes, I have no special attachment
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2013-06-30 13:44:25 PDT (-0700)

to the spores and would like to see what more we can learn from them.
If your friend thinks they can be useful let me know where to send them.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2013-06-30 11:40:06 PDT (-0700)

I believe the current method involves tissues taken from cultures. In that regard, the spores may be quite useful. I know a talented cultivator who would jump at the opportunity to cultivate this if you would be willing to part with a print.

Thanks for the good info Rocky and Richard,
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2013-06-30 11:03:36 PDT (-0700)
The question does remain open with this collection, but I’m wondering why DNA analysis could not be done on spores? Maybe at some point in the not too distant future, when DNA testing becomes even more available, that DNA analysis on undamaged mushroom spores might be even more reliable and informative.
By: Rocky Houghtby
2013-06-30 10:54:49 PDT (-0700)

How significant that is. G. fulvosquamulosus was collected three times and lepidotus once. If the blue staining is primarily observable on primordia and refrigerated material then it may have been overlooked by Smith and Hesler. Both species have probably never been observed in more than one stage of maturity, as both descriptions fail to mention changes in coloration of anything but the lamellae. The macro description for G. lepidotus in particular lacks a lot of details and even mentions a solitary fruit being found once.

I know that out of the 10 specimens of G. braendlei I studied, only two demonstrated green stains.

Sadly, this obs will never get confirmed :(

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-06-30 09:55:53 PDT (-0700)

none of the mentioned species are active.
this species is bruising blue on the pins…
look closely…

By: Rocky Houghtby
2013-06-30 07:57:54 PDT (-0700)

Such is life :p I will write a description for both taxa tonight. Your original proposal had won me over last night, but I went over it again and realized that the tufted squamules, the fragility of the veil, lack of staining and southern distribution pointed at lepidotus. Hopefully you can preserve a specimen next time, you are an outstanding microscopist.

Rocky, unfortunately I had limitations
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2013-06-30 07:45:59 PDT (-0700)

on what I could preserve while in Texas so all I have from this collection is a partial spore print. Also I didn’t realize it could be rare.
G. lepidotus is another interesting prospect, but also seemingly lacking in available detailed web information?

By: Rocky Houghtby
2013-06-29 22:06:47 PDT (-0700)

Fantastic ID! It would be awesome if you could confirm it by measuring the pleuro, chelio, caulocystidia and basidia, check the lamellar and pileal trama and hyphae of the cutis and mount the spores in melzers. A confirmed specimen of G. fulvosquamulosus would be really nice to have for any future phylogenetic research of North American Gymnopilus.

Created: 2013-06-29 16:57:34 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2014-10-13 18:17:08 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 157 times, last viewed: 2017-11-10 19:31:22 PST (-0800)
Show Log