Collection location: Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania, USA [Click for map]
Who: Dave W (Dave W)
This collection made from an area of my lawn where many similar collections have been made, and “old species #17” has been considered a likely ID. Decided to take a look at the spores. Broadly ellitpical, which I believe fits old 17.
These two are fairly robust specimens.
Found at least 20 feet from a wood border. It looks to me like Shagbark Hickory is likely the associate (unless there’s something very strange going on with this type). A large hickory is the only hardwood with roots potentially long enought o reach into this part of the lawn. There are also mature White Pines nearby.
Dried material will eventually be submitted.
|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.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.80||2||(Dave W)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
has been that spore size/shape is an important rooseveltensis character. Do all/most of the imposters have globose spores?
As always, I thank you for your effort and your generosity.
Take a look at the material examined data field on the techtab here:
So far a lot of the similar species from outside CT, NJ, and PA are turning out to be different taxa. Moreover, there seem to be more than one thing in “old 17” as I have thought for some time. Need to jack up my level of sophistication concerning gray members of the Vaginatae. With our new data from Linas’ magic dungeon, I think we will make a little more progress.
I still have some question about how much the DNA can vary within this potential species. It is not one of the “clean” species with regard to convenient uniformity of the two genes commonly used as “proposed fungal barcodes.” Hence, we see a somewhat vague pattern given that we have only sequenced three or four samples so far. After tax time, I will be able to give a little more attention to this topic.
I can very likely get more material of what will almost certainly be the same species as seen in the observation. The area where these pop up is close enough to my house that I can occasionally see one while standing on my front porch. Generally, during a given summer I see between 10 and 50 of these in this ~40 square yard area.
Sorry to cut into this discussion, but I am curious about how the DNA from this material compared with that of obs 207795 (we discussed it a couple of months ago). David made the connection between the two collections based on the morphology – they do look quite similar! Thanks. — Igor
We just got reads for the nrITS and nrLSU regions of this material.
There is a large gap in the center of the nrItS sequence. I believe that this reveals a significant amount of ambiguity in the gene due to failure of the nrITS regions of the rDNA repeat to homogenize.
On the other hand there are a small number of variable base pairs in the nrLSU for which we have around 1400 characters.
This description of your PA material genes also applies to the sequences of two NJ collections that fit one of the “species 17” variants that were sequenced in the same batch (just in hand from Linas). We need to find out if we are seeing the “old seventeen” or something that has gotten a provisional name since those very ancient days.
Thank you so much for all the material you have collected in PA. When we can get more sequences through the process, we’re going to have a little understanding…maybe.
This material has been received and accessioned to Rod’s herbarium. We have also scheduled it for DNA sequencing.
I hope that we can get to looking at DNA of the ellipsoid-spored Vaginatae in eastern North America. It’s an interesting group…and few, if any, of the taxa have been properly named.
But that’s true of so many species in the region…
Created: 2014-09-07 21:22:13 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2017-12-29 00:01:25 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 145 times, last viewed: 2018-01-05 12:32:17 CST (-0500)