Notes: On ground in mixed conifer, mostly Doug Fir
Milk chocolate to medium brown spore print
Squishy but dense, like a gummi worm
Wet tacky throughout
Deeply decurrent pore surface spongy/soft & peels easily
No annulus/veil visible, but old & sole specimen
Possible ID from experts as S. larcinus, but larch are doubtful
Another possible ID was S. ponderosus
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.14||2||(KitsapMycologist,xerantheum)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
We need to study as many specimens identified as S. anomalus as possible, including the holotype as well as specimens of S. punctatipes (S. punctipes is something else).
how do we determine whether or not this is merely an “anomalous” version of S. punctipes?
that is where I am putting my money.
Noah, if you guys find specimens with deeply decurrent pores, will you save them for me? Thanks! Nhu
I will be visiting Tish Tang Campground soon, trying to track down a new collection of S. anomalus. There were six collections at HSU, three from Tish Tang CG, two from Haypress Meadows and one from an unknown location.
David Largent has a bunch of pictures of it that he has shown me. To me it looked more like an abnormal form of S. punctatipes. I have also found large patches of S. pseudobrevipes that have become deeply decurrent (at Quail Hollow in Santa Cruz), so it’s not out of the question that is what we are seeing with this.
hey Nhu, that is EXACTLY what I was just saying to David at our breakfast table this am! I also suspect that this is just a curious morpho variation of some already known Suillus entity.
I also agree that we can’t just willy nilly start sampling old, delicate and unique fbs just to satisfy our curiosity.
AS to this collection being a “mere afterthought” … sometimes good science slips in thru the back door, quietly.
The morphological characters (especially descending pores) seems very obvious to separate this species, but it’s ITS sequence is very closely related to a single specimen of Suillus punctatipes. Both species occur in mixed forests with lots of Douglas fir in the Pacific Northwest. Its rarity and mixed habitat with such a closely related species makes me wonder if it’s just an anomalus mutation – this is speculation of course. These two species fall out in a species complex with Suillus placidus. We’ll definitely need more specimens of both species in order to make sense of the whole thing. Noah is right that a sweeping 97% sequence similarity does not work for Suillus. Morphological differentiation seems to have occurred faster than genetic differentiation in this group (generally this is not a trend in the Fungi).
There are but two extant herbarium collections of this mushroom in the U.S., and one environmental sample which matches the DNA of this specimen. Those collections are this specimen and the holotype. There may be more, but these are unknown to me. I see that there is an herbarium specimen in Russia identified as Suillus anomalus.
The number of viable candidates for gene sequencing are very limited.
If we can get a new collection from the type location, that would be ideal. Barring that, a strong case might be made for a minimally destructive sampling of the holotype. Dr. Halling is correct, however, that this is to be avoided if possible.
To the very best of my knowledge, this collection also represents the first time Suillus anomalous has been documented photographically. I’m actually somewhat embarrassed to say that this was collected almost as an afterthought.
I’m sure that many of us appreciated your remarks. There is the ideal, and then there is the real.
we all understand that. Given that sequencing gets more difficult with age even for specimens in good shape, and that the type of S. anomalus is now pushing 40 years, I’m sure level heads won’t have any issue with destructively sampling the very small amount required for sequencing…
is in herbarium NY. Asking for a bit and sequencing it is not acceptable practice. A formal request to the director of the institution holding the specimen in perpetuity and a valid reason for needing to destructively sample a type is required.
I haven’t sequenced it but I’d like to. If you’re ever at Humboldt State (HSC), please ask for a bit and I’ll sequence it. I’d like to get all the types for Suillus sequenced.
This species is sister to Suillus punctatipes. Nice find!
What I’m seeing, and what I understand from Lisa Rosenthal’s description of how GenBank searches work is that a match to species is 97% and a match to genus 95%, which is not inconsistent with there being a 1-3% difference between a genus match and a species match.
closely related Suillus only differ by 1-3% from an ITS sequence?
I’m very pleased to announce here that sequencing of this specimen by the Bruns Lab is now complete.
Lisa Rosenthal sent me this “sneak preview” of the contig sequence:
She says we have a 97% match for an unnamed environmental sample already in GenBank, which is good enough with our voucher specimen to confirm that sample as Suillus anomalus.
one doesn’t get to use those two words together in a sentence very often! :)
Over the Christmas holiday, I arranged with Tim Baroni to send the entire specimen to him. It should arrive at his office tomorrow, 01/03/2014.
As such there will be gene sequences in short order.
If you send a small piece of dried tubes to me, we’ll sequence it and post the results here. The address is: Tom Bruns, Dept. Plant & Microbial Biol., 111 Koshland hall, Univ. Cal. , Berkeley, 94720-3102
Dear Kitsap Peninsula Mycological Society members, this is a very rare species of Suillus and it looks exactly like the collections made from the original site in Norther California during work on my Master’s Thesis under David Largent/Harry Thiers (perhaps a little water soaked, but still worth preserving). Please make sure the specimen is deposited in an institutional herbarium (Univ. of Washington for example) where it will be curated properly (I am assuming the collection was documented and dried on a food dehydrator to preserve it?) and hopefully someone will extract DNA and provide ITS and other sequences for GenBank.
Thank you for sharing your images and observations! My guess at the time of the original collection was that this species was associated with Ponderosa Pine, check your collection site for pines if you are able.
If you wish to share some of this collection with CORT, we would be happy to curate a sample.
Good job!!! Tim Baroni
Created: 2013-11-17 19:56:30 EST (-0500)
Last modified: 2014-11-03 11:10:05 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 605 times, last viewed: 2017-06-17 15:56:53 EDT (-0400)