Observation 159104: Gymnopilus thiersii M.T. Seidl
When: 2012-04-07
Who: Byrain

Notes: On a burnt Pinus sabiniana log, same location as observation 64297.

Proposed Names

63% (3)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: Purple to burgandy pilei, gregarious on Pinus in California.
Used references: mycotaxon XXXIV

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
There may well be
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-02-05 11:31:38 PST (-0800)

A better name out there, but I strongly disagree that pulchrifolius is that name. G. pulchrifolius is morphologically and microscopically identical to G. braendlei with the exclusion of the presence of pleurocystidia. Hesler could have easily overlooked deeply embedded or collapsed pleurocystidia in his study of Peck’s old dried material.

The systematics of Gymnopilus have yet to be studied seriously in North America, yes. This lack of organization does not invalidate the work of Seidl, Guzman or anyone else.

The literature I cited is not a “one page blurb” it is a four page, peer reviewed publication. The quantifiable morphological and microscopic characteristics contained therein are not subject to perspective, they are documented using scientific standards.

By: Byrain
2014-02-05 10:12:40 PST (-0800)

I think there is a good chance she missed it (As she did with the blue/green stains & described the bitter taste as acrid), I scoped another Gymnopilus recently which I will upload when I have time that had dextrinoid spores, but it was only really noticeable en masse and after a while in a few individual spores. Seidl describes the spores as “brown to rusty brown in Melzer’s regeant; orange brown or reddish golden in mass”. Also, “Cheilocystidia lecythiform, hyaline, capitate or non-capitate, thin-walled, 34-38 x (3-4.5 at head) 8-13 µm” sounds pretty close to “cheilocystidia 28-37 × 6-9 µ, ventricose or flask-shaped, often capitate”, at least on paper.

I think there is a good chance that this represents G. thiersii, but Richard does make good points that there might be a better older name out there…

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-02-05 09:51:24 PST (-0800)

people’s interpretations of color, shape, size, morphology, etc…
can vary greatly.
anyone who has ever played “telephone” can attest to this.
it is best to offer accurate photographs (both macro and micro) when describing new mushroom species, especially when it comes to Gymnopilus…
try passing this off as a new species in 2014…

this one page “blurb” does nothing…
it just confuses an already confused subject more…

the genus needs to be ORGANIZED
we can’t just keep adding new species, one after another without an accurate portrayal of their characteristics and organization of the genus.

compare with…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-02-05 09:25:31 PST (-0800)

LG’s micro description of the same specimens…
these are the “notable inconsistencies” i am talking about…

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-02-05 09:23:09 PST (-0800)

I replied before you edited. some other differences between the descriptions for thiersii and pulchrifolius-

in thiersii the basidia are much larger, the cheilocystidia are shaped differently and slightly larger, caulocystidia are present (although, Seidl doesn’t offer any observations about size and shape) pileocystidia are present (he does describe those) and the lamellar and pileal trams turn brown in koh whereas Hesler describes pulchrifolius as remaining colorless when mounted in koh.

i didn’t say that…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-02-05 09:12:12 PST (-0800)

i just don’t know on what basis he is calling them “nondextrinoid.”
his micro is even closer to pulchrifolius than LG’s.
there are some notable inconsistencies between the two as well.
even LG refrained from calling them “nondextrinoid.”

i do think it is odd that Hesler published NASOG in 1969 and he didn’t even bother to compare his collection to pulchrifolius or braendlei for that matter, in 1987…

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-02-05 08:53:34 PST (-0800)

You think seidl is outright lying about the spores in his description below?

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-02-05 08:45:25 PST (-0800)

that is the color dextrinoid spores turn. sometimes it is a light brown and sometimes it is a darker reddish brown. she never states whether they are dextrinoid or not.
also, some spores will appear dextrinoid when they are immature and not so dextrinoid when mature. she notes, that some have collapsed.

Look again
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-02-05 08:34:07 PST (-0800)

It says the spores are brown in Melzers.

i don’t think…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-02-05 08:26:20 PST (-0800)

i buy that.
i’d be willing to bet that the spores are dextrinoid.


no mention by LG.
also, note: “yellow pigment is dissolved out in KOH

The spores
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-02-05 08:18:59 PST (-0800)

In G. thiersii are non-dextrinoid, whereas the spores in G.“pulchrifolius” are dextrinoid. It is my opinion that pulchrifolius is more than likely a synonym for G. braendlei and limited in distribution to easy of the Rockies. The only difference between pulchrifolius and braendlei are that Hesler could not find pleurocystidia and the reported ecology. I think both differences could be the result of incomplete study.

Gymnopilus thiersii…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-02-05 07:47:45 PST (-0800)

= Gymnopilus pulchrifolius.

i bet when you measure the cheilocystidia, they range from about 18-37 in length.
the gill and pileus trama are probably “slightly interwoven” as well.

if there is pleurocystidia, the collection is likely Gymnopilus aeruginosus.

If these pictures…
By: Randy Longnecker (Randy L.)
2014-02-04 18:03:14 PST (-0800)

aren’t considered “good enough for a field guide” then I must buying some pretty crappy field guides, because these pictures are better.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-02-04 08:50:33 PST (-0800)

Is a pretty pretentious img. qual. vote. The scene is well lit, the subject is entirely within the focal plane, all of the taxonomically relevant features are displayed and the colors appear properly balanced. The hell else could someone want to garner a “good” vote?

My guess is that anon is holding a grudge.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-02-04 08:43:22 PST (-0800)

I do not believe G. aeruginosus is limited to that substrate or distribution. Recall how many times you have seen observations of G. aeruginosus growing from bags of potting soil, I think it is a very cosmopolitan species.

G. thiersii(if that is truly a good name), is closely related to G. aeruginosus but appears to differ in size, shape, color and ecology. I am sure that it is psychoactive and it may or may not bruise less than G. aeruginosus.

I might have mentioned before, I am very excited to see the microscopy! :)

By: Byrain
2014-02-04 08:22:05 PST (-0800)

Both Gymnopilus luteofolius & G. aeruginosus are small eastern species on hardwood with small spores? While this can be a very large western species on Pinus (See obs 62227 & obs 62228 from nearby P. sabiniana logs)? Is G. thiersii known to contain psilocybin? This species certainly does and often presents greenish/bluish stains.

Edit: And so strikes the anonymous photo critic! LOL

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-02-03 20:30:30 PST (-0800)

Lets start with Peck’s descriptions.

Pholiota aeruginosa Peck, Ann. Rep. N.Y. St. Mus. 43: 81 (1890)

Pileus- Cap 1-5 cm, hemispherical, becoming convex, obtuse, glabrous, green, brownish red, sometimes cracked- aerolate, flesh pale, green tinted.

Lamellae- Broad, adnate, sub-ochreaceous, finally rusty orange.

Stipe-2, 5-4 cm long,4-6 mm diameter, Solid, Glabrous to subfibrillose, sometimes grooved, veil fugacious

Spores-Ellipsoidal, 7-8 × 4-5 (Microns? idk)

Habitat- on oak rafters in a buidling in Trexler, PA.

Pholiota luteofolius(Peck) Sacc., Syll. fung. (Abellini) 5: 756 (1887)

Pileus-1-2 cm, firm, convex, dry, squamulose, fibrillose at the margin, pale red or yellow

Lamellae broad, sub distant, emarginate, serrate, yellow becoming bright orange

Stipe 2-3 cm long, .3-.5 cm diameter, solid, fibrillose, colored like the pileus, often curved, annulus not present

spores .00028cm long, .00016cm broad.

Habitat- Trunks of birch, Forestbourough NY in Sept.

The general appearance is like A. variegatus (Tricholomopsis rutilans) , or reddish forms of A. multipunctus (Tricholoma multipunctus). The reddish color sometimes fades with age.

It is my opinion that G. luteofolius is systematically close to G. praeoflocossus and G. fulvosquamulosus; I believe it is similar in appearance to those species. You collection is very interesting! I look forward to the micrographs.

Anyone wanna clarify
By: Byrain
2014-02-03 19:33:41 PST (-0800)

the differences between Gymnopilus luteofolius and G. aeruginosus here? I’ll scope these when I get the chance (Along with so many other collections).

Created: 2014-02-03 19:25:21 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2015-11-13 16:24:22 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 434 times, last viewed: 2016-10-28 15:34:13 PDT (-0700)
Show Log