Observation 178366: Melanogaster broomeanus Berk.
When: 2014-09-13
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

57% (1)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
I am not sure, for it wasn’t my find.
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2014-09-15 18:04:24 CDT (-0400)

Usually people bring them to the identification area as is, but who knows?

Most Melanogasters are overlooked.
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2014-09-15 16:23:35 CDT (-0400)

They are nearly the exact same color of soil, and frequently hide as clumps in the soil.

I’m probably responsible for a lot of the M. tuberiformis collections on MO. It is must more common in my immediate area under Douglas-fir in March-April. But is not believed to be rare. M. tuberiformis is edible (I have chewed it). Grated into cashew butter and spread on celery sticks as an appetizer, it is quite good IMO. It’s loaded with fatty acids, and may be one reason why Northern Flying squirrels prefer it when it is available.

Perhaps the best-collected site in Oregon was Paul Bishop’s Jones Creek Tree Farm. Specimens of M. amgiquus, M. natsii (named for NATS); M. euryspermus; M. tuberiformis, and at least one M. species novum were unearthed here, and confirmed by Dr. James Trappe at Oregon State University. Melanogaster spores are so rarely and randomly examined that some allowance for species novum must be made for any North American species. That’s why collections need to be vouchered and submitted for identification.

It’s also important to note any exudates and fresh, non-cleaned specimens. Your observation looks to be cleaned, which would have removed most rhizomorphs attached to the peridium. Was it cleaned?

M.tuberiformis is not mentioned in the book.
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2014-09-15 12:18:20 CDT (-0400)

I was aware of that species, but looking it up it seemed to be a Western species, appearing on Western websites and books. All of the observations on MO are from California or Oregon, so I weeded this one out of considerations. Of course without micro analysis I can only rely on morphology and other info I can gather to pin down the name, and the names are always tentative for that reason. I think it’s under-collected because it’s so inconspicuous.

By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2014-09-15 07:54:37 CDT (-0400)

is not a commonly collected fungus in the midwest. But Melanogaster tuberiformis is also known from there. Was that mentioned in “mushrooms & other fungi of the Midcontinental United States”?

My only reference is “Mushrooms & other fungi of the Midcontinental United States”
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2014-09-15 02:27:02 CDT (-0400)

by D.Huffman et al. Of course there may be other species of the same appearance not mentioned in the book.

I can verify Melanogaster
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2014-09-15 01:24:47 CDT (-0400)

but M. broomeanus is not a common collection in this genus. How did you arrive at the species?

This was found at a foray by a member of Wisconsin Mycological Society,
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2014-09-14 22:43:38 CDT (-0400)

Who kindly allowed me to take photo of the find. Compare with my observation 146457, found in the same general area (Kettle Moraine State Forest Northern unit).

Created: 2014-09-14 22:35:08 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2014-09-14 22:40:37 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 108 times, last viewed: 2016-10-21 05:10:43 CDT (-0400)
Show Log