Observation 212558: Sarcodon piperatus (Coker ex Maas Geest.) K.A. Harrison
When: 2015-08-01
No herbarium specimen

Notes: This collection never made it the the big show at NEMF; a species name was not determined.

Proposed Names

58% (1)
Eye3
Recognized by sight
61% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Used references: IF lists this name as the currently acceptable synonym for H. piperatum.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
To Noah’s comment I’ll add….
By: Bill (boletebill)
2015-08-13 16:07:43 CDT (-0400)

…that I have collected this in the Hopyard with Noah and by myself and it was in a section of the park (right over the bridge) with American Chestnut stump sprouts present. Since it’s right along the Eight mile river I’d guess red Maple is also there. I don’t have any option about what to call it though but it is hot to the taste.

Thanks Noah.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2015-08-13 11:55:47 CDT (-0400)

That is really interesting. When discussing this collection with Susan Hopkins, neither Hydnellum nor Sarcodon appeared as the clear choice. Given the existence of an intermediate form like this, I’d say genus lumping is in order (for a change!).

I think Susan may still have this material. I’ll see that she receives a link to this observation.

Does one need to create an account at MycoBank in order to access material like what is seen in Noah’s comment?

I didn’t taste the context, didn’t even slice through. I’m always hesitant to damage really cool material such as this.

And…
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2015-08-13 09:26:23 CDT (-0400)

Most Hydnellum and Sarcodon will end up in the same genus, it’s an artificial grouping how we currently separate them

MycoBank has this:
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2015-08-13 09:21:30 CDT (-0400)

“Literature: Baird, R.E. 1986. Study of the stipitate hydnums from the Southern Appalachian Mountains – Genera: Bankera, Hydnellum,. Bibliotheca Mycologica. 104:1-156 Page number: 102

Remarks (internal): Acer rubrum (endomycorrhizal) and stump sprouts of Castanea dentata were always present when S. piperatus was collected.
Harrison (1984) believed that S. piperatus was never validly published (lacking a Latin description) and he attempted to validate the name.
However, Maas Geesteranus (1963) had already validated the name by providing a latin description, omitted by Coker (1939), and simultaneously transferred it to Hydnellum piperatum as a combinato nova on the same page in the paper.
Sarcodon piperatus has been confused with Hydnellum humidum Banker. The problem occurred because the type specimen of the latter species is in very poor condition and the true identity of the material is unknown. Collections by Ellis (NY) from New Jersey, annotated by Banker and labelled as H. humidum, are really identical to the southern Appalachian species S. piperatus (Harrison, personal communication) described by Coker (1939). In later publications, Harrison (1968, 1980) perpetuated the use of Hydnellum humidum, with the species concept identical to that of S. piperatus, and changed the name to Hydnum (Sarcodon) humidipes because of the fleshy-brittle context of the sporophores. Also, Smith and Smith (1973) stated that the name H. humidum had previously been applied to Hydnellum (=Sarcodon) piperatus.
Another problem in the literature concerning S. piperatus was that researchers were unsure of its correct generic placement. This species is an intermediate form between Sarcodon and Hydnellum and its placement in either genus has resulted in much Discussion in the literature. Maas Geesteranus (1963) placed it under Hydnellum mainly because the fruit body context was zonate and woody when dry. Apparently Maas Geesteranus never saw this species when fresh and was never able to observe the fleshy and brittle context common to the genus Sarcodon. The zones are the effect of changing environmental conditions (Harrison, unpublished) and cannot be used solely as the basis for placing this species in the genus Hydnellum. Sarcodon stereosarcinon, occurring in the southern Appalachian Mountains, is similar to S. piperatus, but many differences exist between the two. The pileus of S. piperatus is straw colored, not dark brown as in S. stereosarcinon. Moreover, S. piperatus has an extremely acrid-taste not found in S. stereosarcinon and simply tasting a portion of a pileus will immediately indicate which of the two species is present.

Description type: Non-original description
Description: Sarcodon piperatus Coker apud Maas Geesteranus
Sporophore single to gregarious. Pileus up to 11.0 cm broad, convex, usually plane or depressed, irregular, lobed, pubescent, subfibrillose to glabrous, smooth, white (4A1), cream (4A3) to apricot (5B6) or somalis (7E5) (“White”, “Pale Yellowish Gray” to “Mars Brown” or “Argus Brown”); context up to 1.0 cm thick, not duplex, zonate, brittle, dull red (9B3) with madeira (8E5) zones (“Light Vinaceous Fawn” with “Natal Brown” zones); taste acrid; odor none. Stipe up to 5.5 × 1.5 cm, central to eccentric, terete to attenuate below, often with subbulbous base, fibrillose, pubescent to glabrous, scabrous from abortive spines, dull red (8C4) to reddish brown (M) or light brown (7D4) (“Wood Brown” to “Army Brown” or “Natal Brown”); context not duplex, zonate, concolorous with the pileus flesh to brownish orange (7C4) or reddish gray (7B2) (“Avellaneous” or “Vinaceous Buff”). Spines are up to 5.0 mm long, highly decurrent, crowded, white (6A1) to orange white (6A2) with light tips or fawn (8E4) (“White” to “Pale Salmon” with light tips or “Liver Brown”). Chemical reactions: context tissue olivaceous to nonreactive in KOH or NH4OH. Pileus trama hyphae up to 10.0 :m diam., inflated, k interwoven in subsurface layer, parallel below, unclamped; gloeoplerous,, like hyphae up to 6.3 :m diam. Stipe hyphae are up to 17.5 :m diam, ` inflated, interwoven in subsurface layer, subparallel at the center, unclamped; gloeoplerous-like hyphae up to 9.0 yam diam. Spine trama hyphae up to 14.0 :m diam, uninflated to inflated, unclamped. Basidia (20.0) 25.0-45.0 (62.5) x 5.0-7.0 (8.5) :m (X= 32.95"7.14 × 6.07″0.79 :m), clavate, unclamped, 4-spored; sterigmata (3.0) 4.0-5.0 :m long (X= 4.21"0.41 :m). Basidiospores 4.0-5.0 (6.0) x 3.5-4.5 (5.0) :m (X= 4.79"0.44 × 4.19″0.41 :m), subglobose, brownish; ornamentation tuberculate, prominent, rounded to flattened or exculpate; hilar appendage oblique.
Terphenylquinones: Thelephoric acid.
Distribution: eastern North America and the Great Lakes region (Smith and Smith, 1973); specimens examined: Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee."

Thanks darv.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2015-08-13 03:07:04 CDT (-0400)

The Beers/Coker reference is listed as “in print” as of 2012. Maybe I can track down a copy in a university library and borrow it on inter-college loan.

Descriptions
By: Darvin DeShazer (darv)
2015-08-12 16:50:24 CDT (-0400)

Full descriptions can be found in these references:

Baird, R. E. 1986. Study of the Stipitate Hydnums from the Southern Appalachian Mountains-Genera: Bankera, Hydnellum, Phellodon and Sarcodon. Biblo. Myco. Band 104, J. Cramer, New York, NY. 156p.

Coker, William C. and Alma H. Beers. 1970 (Reprint of 1951). The Stipitate Hydnums Of The Eastern United States. Bibliotheca Mycologica Band 27. J. Cramer, New York, NY. 211p.

Thanks Noah.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2015-08-12 11:18:20 CDT (-0400)

I haven’t found much info on the species H/S piperatus. The hard, very dense context pointed toward Hydnellum.

Created: 2015-08-12 00:52:25 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-08-13 10:23:55 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 88 times, last viewed: 2016-11-04 12:24:05 CDT (-0400)
Show Log