Notes: Since this was found in exactly the same spot as obs 103977 and gestalt morphology and the odor match, too, I bet the two obsies are the same species.
Molecular Sequencing Discussion:
> Full-length nrLSU sequence (Haplotype 1 = 1446 bp long):
> Haplotype 2 is one bp longer (insert a G next to the one book-ended by *)
> Fragment 52—>1035 (984 bp long) is a 100% overlay with the B. bicolor voucher TH6933 (accession #AY612800). This is the top scoring hit (980/984 = 99.59% identity)
> Fragment 67—>946 (880 bp long) is a 100% overlay with the B. pallidoroseus voucher snHor01 (accession #KF030305). This is the second top scoring hit (876/880 = 99.55% identity). This sequence was used in Phylogenetic overview of the Boletineae by Nuhn et al. (2013)
> Fragment 67—>946 is also a 100% overlay with the L. carminipes voucher MB06-001 (accession #JQ327001). This is the third top scoring hit (876/881 = 99.43% identity; 1 gap). This sequence was used in Phylogenetic overview of the Boletineae by Nuhn et al. (2013)
I think this collection is B. pallidoroseus based on morphology, chemical tests (for obs 103977) and the characteristic odor. Looking at the massive nrLSU tree published in the 2013 Nuhn et al. paper, B. bicolor, B. pallidoroseus, L. carminipes, and L. pseudosensisiblis all sit in a group called the Carminipes Clade, but there are two distinct and not closely related sets of vouchers in that phylogram where the first three species reside. This makes me think that there was probably misidentification, given the fact that bicolor and pallidoroseus may look very much alike at times.
|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||5.73||1||(IGSafonov)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Created: 2015-07-20 11:21:36 CDT (-0500)
Last modified: 2016-08-03 18:59:30 CDT (-0500)
Viewed: 85 times, last viewed: 2016-11-21 22:00:35 CST (-0600)