Notes: > Growing in a hemlock grove with a few white pines intermixed.
> Occurrence of this species in North America is likely according to Noordeloos and Kuo.
DNA Sequencing Results:
> A clean and contiguous 1380 bps nrLSU sequence was obtained for this material; the first 60 bps from the start of the LSU region are missing (a typical full-length nrLSU sequence I’ve been getting is 1440-1450 bps long)
> A GenBank BLAST search of the full-length sequence hasn’t returned any meaningful hits.
> A GenBank BLAST search of a sequence fragment (the first 911 bps through the end of the LR5 region) produced two significant alignments with European conifer-associated red/orange-capped leccinum species:
1) 100% identity match (873/873 bps overlap, 95% coverage, no gaps) with L. vulpinum voucher KPM-NC-0017834 (accession #JN378516; collected in Scotland under P. sylvestris and identified by R. Watling)
2) 100% identity match (870/870 bps overlap, 95% coverage, no gaps) with L. piceinum strain Lp1 (accession #DQ534614; collected in Austria under P. abies and identified by M. Binder)
|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)
This leccinum is the only scaber stalk from Nescopec I have in my possession. It also appears to be the only bolete from that place I took home and didn’t eat. :-)
I don’t think I will be submitting more scaber stalks for sequencing of a single gene/locus, based on the kind of results I got back from GenBank searches for this and another scaber stalk (217610). Resolving individual leccinum species and unraveling their phylogeny definitely requires multiple loci, perhaps more so than for other boletes, and I would rather casually pursue this strategy with a few other select and obscure members of the Boletaceae I may encounter in the future. I will continue to collect and preserve leccinums and post obs on MO; however, at this time I see it as the extent of my contribution to their study by MK et al.
was submitted by me, along with photos that I took. My photos show the same traits as yours, including staining reactions. The notes I submitted were taken from MO 207403.
Actually, I think you may have taken home a few examples of collections we made and which I submitted to Michael. Maybe you should just hold on to your material and if Michael gets molecular data from stuff I have submitted, then you could just compare results. If something you have looks like it may be different, then maybe you could initiate a discussion with Michael.
You may have also taken a few things that day which you intended to submit. Not exactly sure what to say here.
we had worked out which collections from that day at NSP that each of us would post and/or submit for study. I think the materials you took home were not from the same exact patches as what I took home. General location, hemlock/birch woods along the creek at NSP… I have submitted similar material collected from there.
Yes, it makes sense, but I need a clarification. I thought that you had already submitted another fb from the same collection as mine (the original comment), as opposed to a distinct collection from another location with the same habitat (second comment).
set aside for Michael, then I’d just go ahead and include it. I would assume that including different collections of similar material may be useful fir his study.
…letting me know, Dave. One less leccinum I need to worry about when I finally get around to send my collections to Michael Kuo.
collected on the same day, in the same location, has been submitted to Michael Kuo for analysis.
Created: 2015-06-22 23:24:30 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2016-01-24 00:23:34 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 103 times, last viewed: 2017-06-23 20:27:17 EDT (-0400)