Observation 159597: Gymnopilus P. Karst.
When: 2014-02-12

Notes: Fruiting in scattered clusters, in wood chips under redwoods in suburban landscaping. Stipe very solid, 7-13 mm thick, 5-6 cm long. Pileus 2-4cm wide (immature specimens though). Not pictured in the wood chips they were growing from, I took these pictures at home.

Proposed Names

50% (3)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: Orange veil remnants, fruiting on wood.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Doubt all day Randy
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-02-12 15:01:57 CST (-0600)

That’s how science works. It would be super cool if you left some and could snap them again in the next couple days.

Gymnopilus humicola…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-02-12 14:34:33 CST (-0600)

is an idea.

Micro
By: Randy Longnecker (Randy L.)
2014-02-12 14:15:08 CST (-0600)

I am drying some nice clusters of these right now, and I will try and go back over the next couple days to collect/photograph some fully matured specimens.

Info
By: Randy Longnecker (Randy L.)
2014-02-12 14:13:14 CST (-0600)

You’re right, I don’t provide enough so the fault is on my end. I’ll try my best to help sort this stuff out.

Mainly, I just don’t see ANY similarities between this observation and this other one, http://mushroomobserver.org/156167?q=1mqUy . Other than the fact that they are both Gymnopilus, they share absolutely no physical characteristics IMO.

As far as the location thing goes, I just noticed a big influx of aurantiophyllus proposals one day and noticed on one of them you said something to the extent of, “common on wood chips in California”. That, along with my observations which are clearly different both having the same name proposed caused me to jump the gun and make that “silly locations” comment. I respectfully retract that statement now.

Not trying to doubt you or be insulting brotha. You’re the mycologist, I’m just the guy who loves hunting mushrooms. I respect your work and hope to learn from it :)

hmm…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-02-12 14:04:39 CST (-0600)

it would take me awhile to even conjure a guess.
w/o micro it is hard to say.
but, it is definitely a strange one.

How a bout
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-02-12 14:00:20 CST (-0600)

Including measurements in your observations Randy.

I don’t see many observations labelled as aurantiophyllus at all, I see plenty where aurantiophyllus has been proposed though. Seeing as I proposed most of them I’m going to address your “silly location” comment. I have never proposed a single taxa based on location alone. I take morphology, ecology and season into account as well. I would happily take micromorphology into account if it were provided. As it were, the taxa I proposed is just that, a proposition.

I wouldn’t put to much faith in in stipe measurements from a description that was based on a single collection. Is love to hear how this observation differs from the other proposed aurantiophyllus obs.

Stipes on these
By: Randy Longnecker (Randy L.)
2014-02-12 13:59:15 CST (-0600)

were about 7-13mm wide, and only about 5-6cm long. These specimens aren’t even mature either.

Stipe…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-02-12 13:49:01 CST (-0600)

“6-10cm long 5-8mm thick, equal, pallid-orange-buff, at first paler from whitish veil fibrils, base white mycelioid, not darker, rhizmorphs numerous. Veil white, fugacious or leaving a slight evanescent zone.”

i don’t think it is, but i didn’t vote.

“aren’t far off”
By: Randy Longnecker (Randy L.)
2014-02-12 13:44:44 CST (-0600)

What makes you say that? Not trying to argue or anything but they look entirely different to me. The stipes on these things are massive, super thick and super solid, and they taper down almost to the point where they’re root-like. Is that characteristic of aurantiophyllus (sincere question, I can’t find any info on it)?

I feel like a lot of California observations are being labeled as aurantiophyllus just based on location, which seems silly.

they aren’t far off from this…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-02-12 13:07:46 CST (-0600)

www.mushroomobserver.org/121496

though…

which we should be comparing them ALL to…

aurantiophyllus…
By: Randy Longnecker (Randy L.)
2014-02-12 12:47:20 CST (-0600)

You called one of my other observations aurantiophyllus, http://mushroomobserver.org/156167?q=1n51Y, but there is no way these 2 are the same.

Created: 2014-02-12 12:23:54 CST (-0600)
Last modified: 2016-01-21 00:11:19 CST (-0600)
Viewed: 145 times, last viewed: 2016-11-11 21:49:03 CST (-0600)
Show Log