Observation 203346: Ganoderma adspersum (Schulzer) Donk
When: 2015-04-24
Collection location: Sintra, Portugal [Click for map]
Who: zaca
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

30% (2)
Recognized by sight
63% (3)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: See the comments, particularly the data given by MSchink.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
OK! Thanks again, MSchink,
By: zaca
2015-04-26 16:48:12 CDT (-0400)

for the valuable information.
According to it and in the absence of the specimen, I think it is safer to call this G. adspersum than G. applanatum.

Remember that,
By: MSchink
2015-04-26 16:38:56 CDT (-0400)

in the case of the paper I cited G.australe is a synonym of G.adspersum, due to some mycologists errantly assuming that G.adspersum in Europe was the same as G.australe from the south Pacific, and felt that since the name G.australe was older it was more appropriate. But DNA shows they are distinct species, so G.australe should not be used for Europe.

The conclusions are pretty much summed up in the except I gave, replace G.australe with G.adspersum. The two are similar in that they are non laccate, typically growing on hardwoods. G.adspersum usually growing in a more blunted shape while G.applanatum grows more flat (applanate) Though this is considered unreliable because older specimens of G.adspersum may appear applanate due to growing out so much.

G.applanatum also had a thinner skin, while G.adspersum was usually quite thick, except in younger specimens and near the edge. The skin of G.applanatum is typically less than .75mm while G.adspersum is typically thicker.

Here is an excerpt from the conclusion.

Unless the observer is
very familiar with both species, they cannot be
reliably identified without being removed from
the tree and sawn in half. Only mature specimens
with at least two years’ growth (and preferably
more) should be taken for a satisfactory
identification, which should then be possible
from these two brief descriptions:
G. applanatum
Annual tube layers completely separated by layers
of context.
Cuticle (measured at thickest part) less than 0.75
mm thick.
Spore measurement: 5.5 – 8.0 (-9.0)x 4.5 – 6.0 [Lm.
G. australe
Annual tube layers not completely separated by
context.
Cuticle (measured at thickest part) 0.75 mm
thick or more.
Spore measurement: (7-) 8.0 – 13.0x 5.5 – 8.5 [Lm.

Thanks MSchink,
By: zaca
2015-04-26 14:09:39 CDT (-0400)

for your comment and for the data mentioned there.
As far as I can see the values just obtained are in the middle of the range for the width of G. australe that you cited, and outside of the range of G. applanatum. What about the lenght? What are the conclusions of Ann Leonard in that paper you cited? (Sorry, but I have no access to the paper.)

Hello.
By: MSchink
2015-04-26 13:21:39 CDT (-0400)

It seems that many of those sites are using a broad definition of G.applanatum, especially the ones focusing on North American fungi. One thing to remember is that the name G.applanatum was described in Europe. There are a few details which separate the American from the European, but I don’t know yet how consistent they are. If you lump in all synonyms though you will get a unnecessarily broad spore range.

This is from “Two Ganoderma species compared” by Ann Leonard Which looked at European species.

G. applanatum spores measured from 4.5 – 6.0
[.Lm wide and were never found to be over 6.0 [.Lm
in width, whereas the width of G. australe spores
was 5.0 – 8.5 [.Lm, but seldom less than 6.0 [.Lm
(Fig 3).

She does go on to note that due to size overlap other features should be used as well. The main one will require slicing in half of specimens more than two years old. G.applanatum will have a layer of context between the pore layers, and G.adpersum will lack this layer.

Spores dimensions added.
By: zaca
2015-04-26 08:10:30 CDT (-0400)
Dear MSchink,
By: zaca
2015-04-25 14:56:44 CDT (-0400)

Thanks for your comment.
I chose the name G. applanatum mainly because this specimen grew at the same place than those in my previous observations at this place, which at the time I classified like that.
But, I have a difficulty with the dimensions of the spores and as far as I can understand in this genus everyone has its own dimensions for them. Before some of the contributors of MO told me their dimensions and at the following well known websites they also look very different:
California Fungi: 6-9.5 × 5.7 µm;
Mushroom expert: 8-12 × 6.5-8 µ;
Roger Musghrooms: 6.5–8.5 × 4.5–6um, mostly 8 × 5.5 µm.
Anyway, I have a leaf with some spores and in a forthcomming oportunity I’ll look at them and post here the result. Maybe then you can help me with the task of classify it.
Thanks again!

Hello.
By: MSchink
2015-04-25 14:08:24 CDT (-0400)

G.adspersum is another possibility. It tends to have more of a wedge shape to it than the applanate growth of applanatum. Though this is variable, G.adspersum also has larger spores.

G.applanatum spores. 5.5-8.0µ x 4.5-6.0µ

G.adspersum spores. 8-13µ x 5-8 µ

You may find G.adspersum in local guides under G.australe but that name is mistakenly applied in Europe.

Created: 2015-04-25 13:37:09 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-04-26 17:32:19 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 102 times, last viewed: 2016-12-02 20:52:31 CST (-0500)
Show Log