Observation 179898: Gymnopilus P. Karst.
When: 2014-09-21
Who: zaca
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Growing on the remains of a dead Quercus tree.


-28/09/2014-Microscopy: Pileipellis;
-28/09/2014-Microscopy: Lamella – trama
-28/09/2014-Microscopy: Basidia
-28/09/2014-Microscopy: Cheilocystidia;
-28/09/2014-Microscopy: Cheilocystidia;
-28/09/2014-Microscopy: Spores; NOTE: I cannot guarantee the calibration of my scope;
-28/09/2014-Microscopy: Stiptipellis;
-28/09/2014-Microscopy: Material from the ring.

Proposed Names

0% (3)
Recognized by sight
7% (3)
Recognized by sight
-39% (3)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
it doesn’t matter…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-29 17:30:12 PDT (-0700)

that isn’t the point.

you did not find that.

you found something w/o pleurocystidia…

it doesn’t matter how you spin it.

it is not G. junonius.

the original description of the species is about 8 sentences…

And I return to my starting point:
By: zaca
2014-09-29 17:28:36 PDT (-0700)

According Index Fungorum, the current name for
Gymnopilus spectabilis sensu A.H. Smith (1949)
Gymnopilus junonius.

the name…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-29 17:24:03 PDT (-0700)

with the most accurate description should take precedence, imo.
that is, how we are going to end the confusion.
it is a very valid name. read the paper.
it’s in print. you can either choose to accept it or not…

please, show me this, “(Weinm.: Fr.) A. H. Smith” description.

no one knows what G. junonius is…that’s exactly why it’s bunk…again, imo.

let me state, for the record, that i am NOT arguing with you…merely having a discussion.

if you can find me a description that states that G. spectabilis/junonius…does not have pleurocystidia…before Holec.
I will agree, that that person, should be given credit for that. 100%.

Not again,
By: zaca
2014-09-29 17:20:11 PDT (-0700)

The species that Holec describes is
Gymnopilus spectabilis (Weinm.: Fr.) A. H. Smith
So, “G. spectabilis sensu Holec” is not a valid name.
As I told before, he states to not know the one called G. junonius.

it is…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-29 17:09:40 PDT (-0700)

most likely, G. spectabilis sensu Holec.

Richard, Thanks for the comments.
By: zaca
2014-09-29 17:02:56 PDT (-0700)

It seems that is no so simple to identify even some well known species of Gymnopilus.
I add some more photos. The caulocystidia I found are very similar to cheilocystidia. The material from the ring is almost impossible to analise, due to the mass of spores.

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-29 15:44:53 PDT (-0700)

thank you.
Hesler states that G. spectabilis has pleurocystidia…which he also, pretty much made synonymous w/ G. junonius.
[edit] Hesler states that the pleurocystidia is, “inconspicuous.”

J. Holec states that G. spectabilis does not have pleurocystidia…
which, imo, he is right about.

there is an Australian paper that i will dig up that describes G. junonius has having pleurocystidia.

also, check the color of the basidioles in only water if possible.
it is much easier with fresh material.

nice micro.

Questions and answers
By: zaca
2014-09-29 15:36:21 PDT (-0700)

“pleurocystidia is there any?” No pleurocystidia was found;
“are the spores dextrinoid?” Yes, the reaction to melzer was red-brown colored, but not to much intense;
“pileocystidia?” No pileocystidia was found;
“caulocystidia?” Not analised. I will look at it soon.

all of your “cystidia” micrographs are labeled, “basidia.”
CORRECTED (was caused by uploading many photos at one time and I forgot to change the text)

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-29 15:06:10 PDT (-0700)

is there any?
all of your “cystidia” micrographs are labeled, “basidia.”
are the spores dextrinoid?
pileocystidia? caulocystidia?

Revisited and Microscopy added.
By: zaca
2014-09-29 14:13:09 PDT (-0700)
By: zaca
2014-09-24 11:46:40 PDT (-0700)

In general I use the following rule for giving names to the mushrooms after their identification by using descriptions, images or keys: I look for the current name of such material at “Index Fungorum”. The reason is that such “entity” is more credible that anyone individual opinion, taken into account its objectives, history and permanent updating. But there are cases and cases ….

In the case of this observation the material belongs clearly (in my opinion) to the complex that includes the names G. junonius and G. spectabilis and to take one of the names I rely on “Index Fungorum”. Let me say that in the past, I used the name G. spectabilis for such material, because that was the name used in local field guides.
As everybody knows here at MO everyone can change the synonymies and declare “Preferred Synonym(s)” or “Deprecated Synonym(s)”, according to his will or personal taste. In the present case someone decided to declare as “Preferred Synonym(s): Gymnopilus spectabilis J. Holec” and “Deprecated Synonym(s): Gymnopilus junonius (Fr.) P.D. Orton var. junonius”. Why should I follow that rule? and not the reverse which is given in “Index Fungorum”?

Let me give a closer look to the paper that justifies such choice:
Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae, Series B, Historia Naturalis, 61 (1–2): 1–52

In this paper the author clearly states that
“If the two names really represent the same species, then G. junonius must be used as the correct name.”
but, before in the description of G. spectabilis, he took several selected ilustrations of others given under the name of G. junonius.

After he gives some reasons to prefer G. spectabilis over G. junonius, the first of which is not clear because he declares to ignore the fungi named by other as G. spectabilis var. junonius:
“However, even some recent authors (Bon et Roux 2002, Robich 1989) report finds of a slender fungus named G. junonius or G. spectabilis var. junonius. I personally do not know such a fungus (neither from nature nor from herbaria), but until its relation to robust forms (G. spectabilis) is checked, I prefer to use the traditional name G. spectabilis for the robust forms which I know from the Czech Republic.”

Next the author continues with other reasons for such choice:
“Another reason is the fact that some important parts of Fries’ description of G. junonius (Fries 1821: 244, 1874: 223) are in contradiction to the collections I know from the CR. Fries writes that Agaricus junonius is small (“minor”: pileus up to 5 cm), has glabrous pileus surface, cylindrical stipe (“stipite aequali”) and grows solitarily. All these characters disagree with the robust fungus widely known as G. spectabilis and, in my opinion, the name G. junonius in its original sense is not applicable for it.”

Here and again there is nothing scientific that justify such choice. Note the in the original description of Fries is not written
“minor”: pileus up to 5 cm
but only
and the term “pileus up to 5 cm” was inserted by the author of the paper.
If one compares a small house with a skyscraper one can refer to the first as “minor”, but if one compares a regular car with the same small house one can use “major” for the house (but it is the same). Now we are in the DNA century after the Microcope century, these reasons are not justifications for names.

Therefore, I see no reason for not to continue following “Index Fungorum” in this case.
Moreover, I don’t think that, in the case of this observation, the best solution is to label it with the name of the genus “Gymnopilus” or with the meaningless “Agaricales sensu lato”.

Finally, I did not collect a sample of this material, but I surely will find it again, since it fruits at the same place (at least) over the last three years. So, what I can promise is to collect a sample next time and to scope it (the DNA century still did not arrived for me).

Olá , Zaca !
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-09-23 21:20:07 PDT (-0700)

Esta é uma coleção muito interessante. Não combina muito bem com o conceito friesan para junonia , mas estou certo de que é o nome que você vai receber de seu guia de campo . Em particular , a estipe clavate , margem píleo appendiculate e muito alta anel são de interesse . você vai examinar estes com o microscópio ? Tenho visto alguns agradável microscopia em suas observações recentemente .

why is this still G. junonius…??
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-23 21:05:22 PDT (-0700)

i think the votes show otherwise…

i guess you fell asleep…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-23 17:37:46 PDT (-0700)

we can chat tomorrow.

text me. ;) <3

hey zaca…??
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-23 17:30:46 PDT (-0700)

did you keep them?

do you have dried specimens available for study?

hey zaca…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-23 17:29:44 PDT (-0700)

quick question…

how big were these?

do you have that information, at least???

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-23 16:58:23 PDT (-0700)

did you do the DNA sequencing and what observations were they compared to?

do you have a link? publication?

have you even read the original description of G. junonius?

oh, by the way…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-23 16:57:07 PDT (-0700)

did you happen to look at the spores in NH4OH and melzer’s?
do you have melzer’s or NH4OH?

i will…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-23 16:52:41 PDT (-0700)

tell me when you want me to stop…

what about the gill trama?
what color exudes from the cross-section when mounted in KOH?

Keep talking
By: zaca
2014-09-23 16:51:35 PDT (-0700)
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-23 16:49:53 PDT (-0700)

do the spores look like?
is there any pleurocystidia or cheilocystidia?
what about pileocystidia and caulocystidia?
present? measurements?
what about the pileus trama?
are the spores dextrinoid?
what do they look like in KOH and melzer’s?

any idea?

i love…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-23 16:46:53 PDT (-0700)

how you post a Gymnopilus observation, w/o micro…
and have the nerve to vote, “as if” to a genus proposal…
but, yet vote “i’d call it that” to a species level identification within that genus.
get a clue.

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-23 16:43:56 PDT (-0700)
Maybe you can start to learn
By: zaca
2014-09-23 16:42:39 PDT (-0700)

portuguese, because then I could say something more adequate…like BESTA

what are you talking about…?
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-23 16:38:41 PDT (-0700)

try learning how to spell.

So, now YOU have the thuth.
By: zaca
2014-09-23 16:37:51 PDT (-0700)

and that permits you to insult the others …

index fungorum is wrong…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-23 16:31:39 PDT (-0700)

and so are you.
thanks for the comment.
very kind of you to, “yell at me” for proposing a name and voting…

By: zaca
2014-09-23 16:15:05 PDT (-0700)

Gymnopilus junonius = Gymnopilus spectabilis

SEE Index Fungorum where the current name is Gymnopilus junonius:
Gymnopilus spectabilis sensu A.H. Smith (1949), auct., (also see Species Fungorum: Gymnopilus junonius); Strophariaceae

Created: 2014-09-23 10:58:07 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2014-09-29 17:14:55 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 298 times, last viewed: 2016-10-21 17:04:00 PDT (-0700)
Show Log