Observation 214147: Pisolithus arhizus group
When: 2015-08-24
No herbarium specimen

One of the mushrooms brought to the Oregon Mycological Society 24 Aug 2015 pre-meeting Identification Session.
Collector: unknown
Determiner: Judy Roger

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
group vs sensu auct. Amer.
By: Joe Cohen (Joseph D. Cohen)
2015-08-30 05:53:13 CEST (+0200)


Thank you again!

On name: Yes, that’s not only be more accurate; it’s also simple, transparent, would make it easier to fix things in MO when the species is finally named. I don’t think MO will allow “Pisolithus sp.” So it should either be “Pisolithus arhizus group” or something like “Pisolithus arhizus sensu auct. Amer”.

Which do think is better? (Or is there another, superior alternative?)

(For anyone who is following this conversation and does not otherwise have access, the original 2002 Pisolithus split-up paper is available free here.)

1.vwhat to do with undescribed species & 2. genbank
By: else
2015-08-30 05:25:58 CEST (+0200)

to start with the second part – yes, the sequence of my collection is in Genbank. The paper is by Wilson et al., 2012. Diversity and evolution of ectomycorrhizal host associations in the Sclerodermatineae (Boletales, Basidiomycota). New Phytologist 194: 1079–1095 doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04109.×.
Fig. 1 has four different Pisolithus taxa: P. arhizus and P. tinctorius (separate but in the same clade); P. albus, P. aurantioscaber, and P. sp. (the California collection). To be completely clear, i also sequenced myself another Pisolithus collection from Berkeley, CA, that is a nice match with my other collection.
The original Pisolithus split-up paper is by Martin et al., 2002. Phylogeography of the ectomycorrhizal Pisolithus species as inferred from nuclear ribosomal DNA ITS sequences. New Phytologist 153: 345–357.

My opinion on the name is quite clear: do not use any of the existing species names, when you know those are wrong. It does not help, it gives the impression that you know that that is the right name, and does not advance science. Much better to say Pisolithus arhizus group or Pisolithus sp.
Another recent example here on MO was a Sarcosphaera collection from Colorado – we know it is not the same as European species, so the observer did not use European names for it. Quite simple. and indicates that somebody could do something about it.

By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2015-08-29 20:35:34 CEST (+0200)

If I’m going to be wrong, it could be much worse than with Alexander H. Smith. I remember in 1970 trying to find any mushroom guidebooks: A.H. Smith had a corner on the market at that time; and until DNA testing in 1995 or so was still going strong. I wish I had met him, his wife (Helen V. Smith). I know his daughter, Nancy Smith-Weber.

Is your collection in Genbank?
By: Joe Cohen (Joseph D. Cohen)
2015-08-29 19:06:20 CEST (+0200)

All very interesting!

1. I understood from your earlier message that the taxon in this Observation probably will end up being from a new species, with a different name. But what to call in in MO until then? I think its more convenient to use a species rather than the genus; it puts things into a smaller bucket, and will make it easier to rename once a new name is published.

2. Do you know if the sequence from your collection is in Genbank?

Pisolithus arhizus
By: else
2015-08-29 18:03:23 CEST (+0200)

once upon a time, Pisolithus arhizus was considered to occur worldwide. DNA research of a limited sample showed that there are many different Pisolithus species, but these were not formally named.
in a paper by Andy Wilson at least one sample from California was sequenced (one of my collections), and indeed, that was different than European Pisolithus arhizus and other speces.
So yes, we all were wrong in the past, including Alexander H. Smith.

PNW species
By: Joe Cohen (Joseph D. Cohen)
2015-08-29 14:26:29 CEST (+0200)

1. Of the species proposed so far, the only one found in the PNW is the one currently called Pisolithus arhizus. See Gibson, Matchmaker: Mushrooms of the Pacific Northwest, Version 2.2 (Apr. 2014) (application, latest version downloadable at http://www.svims.ca/council/matchmaker.htm).
2. FWIW, it does not enhance one’s credibility to say that one would “Call It” a dozen other species, none of which have been recorded anywhere near this location. Consider also the Law of Holes.

Looks like
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2015-08-29 07:50:26 CEST (+0200)

Pulk has yet to determine a possible species not associated with eucalyptus or acacia.

BTW, I know of one eucalyptus that survives here in Oregon, for at least 3 years now. It grows in my neighbor’s yard. It died back to the ground each year, but it does sometimes come back. As global warming continues more eucalyptus may survive in Oregon, and species of Pisolithus may become established with those trees.

Until then, I would require DNA proof this is other than P. arhizus.

By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2015-08-29 03:04:00 CEST (+0200)

Alexander H Smith was incorrect in his identification, Else?

I’m wondering what this fungus may be then. It is seldom associated with eucalyptus outside of California, at least as I know it. Commonly mycorrhizal with 35 tree species in the US. How many tree species is it associated with in Europe?

more changes to come
By: else
2015-08-29 01:30:05 CEST (+0200)

as this is most probably not the same as the European species whose name we have been using !

What used to
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2015-08-28 20:07:41 CEST (+0200)

be has been changed again. Pisolithus tinctorius (in Arora) has now been renamed to Pisolithus arrhizus (in Arora) which has been renamed P. arhizus in MO.

Created: 2015-08-26 23:50:55 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2015-11-10 23:18:11 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 184 times, last viewed: 2016-10-26 13:11:03 CEST (+0200)
Show Log