Notes: On ground in grass under oak. Cap yellow brown, cracked, 15 cm. Short yellow tubes (hard to separate from flesh) and large angular pores—bluing. Short red stem (5 cm. × 2 cm), possibly reticulate at apex. Yellow cottony flesh in cap—unchanging except for slight bluing near tubes. Stem flesh yellow,reddening where eaten by larvae. Mild odor and taste.
Images
| User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 5.89 | 1 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
0.85 | 28.49% | |||||||
| User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 10.69 | 2 | (IGSafonov) | |||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
0.91 | 30.48% | |||||||
| User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 11.25 | 2 | (Herbert Baker) | |||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
1.84 | 61.23% | |||||||
| User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 5.89 | 1 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 5.36 | 1 | (Herbert Baker) | |||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
0.52 | 17.45% | |||||||
Comments
Add Comment
The authors were able to keep the epithet ‘bicolor’ by using Suillus bicolor Kuntze as the basionym. http://www.speciesfungorum.org/...
Here is a direct copy and paste from “Four New Genera of the Fungal Family Boletaceae” by G. Wu et al.:
Baorangia rubelloides G. Wu, Halling & Zhu L. Yang, nom. nov.
Replaced synonym: Boletus bicolor Peck, Ann. Rep. N.Y. St. Mus. 24: 78 (1872) 1871; non Boletus bicolor Raddi, Mém. Soc. Ital. Modena 13(2): 10, tab. 5, Fig. 4 (1806).
MycoBank: MB 810355
Habitat: solitary, scattered, or gregarious under broadleaved trees.
Known distribution: North America.
Specimen examined: USA, NEW YORK: North Collins Elementary School, 13 August 1977, collected by E.E. Both (BUF 2064).
Commentary: Because Boletus bicolor Peck (1872) is a latter homonym of Boletus bicolor Raddi (1806), a new name has been proposed. The epithet rubelloides was selected due to its morphological similarity to Xerocomellus rubellus (Krombh.) Šutara. Once, Singer (1947) even treated this species as a subspecies of X. rubellus.
In the molecular phylogenetic analysis of Wu et al. (2014), Baorangia rubelloides [Clade 51] clusters together with Boletus rufomaculatus and forms an independent clade as two independent species along with B. pseudocalopus.
Morphologically, B. rubelloides has dark red to rose-red pilei
(Bessette et al. 2000; Smith and Thiers 1971).
-———————————————————————
Hence, the new name for Peck’s Boletus bicolor should be Baorangia rubelloides
It’s odd that the authors would publish Baorangia bicolor with no reference to their previously published name.
Even though Boletus bicolor Peck was illegitimate, there was a way to keep the name bicolor as Kuntze put it into Suillus, making it Suillus bicolor Kuntze; not tying it to Peck’s illegitimate name.
Baorangia bicolor (Kuntze) G. Wu, Halling & Zhu L. Yang, in G. Wu, Roy E. Halling & Zhu L. Yang, comb.nov.
Basionym: Suillus bicolor Kuntze, Revis. gen. pl.(Leipzig) 3 (2): 535 (1898)
Perhaps somebody with better understanding of nomenclature rules (Else) can add more.
I saw a forwarded posting on a facebook forum from Noah that said the genus on Boletus bicolor had changed—didn’t see that there was a change in the species epithet. Thanks for the correction.
Terri
Created: 2014-08-15 11:32:08 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2015-06-22 21:11:14 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 121 times, last viewed: 2017-06-18 13:47:06 PDT (-0700)
Show Log
Didn’t know that SF was the final authority in naming. It would have been nice if the authors considered their naming options more carefully before publishing the article….
Changed the votes back to Baorangia bicolor.