Observation 220407: Gymnopilus P. Karst.
When: 2015-10-24
Who: zaca
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Growing on the remains of a Quercus suber; Same place than observation 179898.

Images

568038
568039
568040
568041
581398
Microscopy: Spores (x1000);
581399
Microscopy: Basidia (bottom) and cheilocystidia (x1000);
581400
Microscopy: Cheilocystidia, lageniform and pigmented (x1000);
581401
Microscopy: Cheilocystidia, other forms and hialine (x1000);

Proposed Names

94% (3)
Eye3 Eyes3
Used references: J. Holec, The genus Gymnopilus (Fungi, Agaricales) in the Czech Republic with respect to collections from other European countries, Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae, Series B, Historia Naturalis, 61 (1–2): 1–52, 2005.
Based on microscopic features

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Thank you so much, Davide.
By: zaca
2015-12-28 14:36:24 COT (-0500)

Recently I got the paper you mentioned, but didn´t read it still. Taking into account the part you cited, the form and the dimensions of the spores obtained together with the reddish squamules, all that makes G. suberis a good choice.

Reference:
Laura Guzmán-Dávalos et al.: Traditional infrageneric classification of Gymnopilus is not supported by ribosomal DNA sequence data, Mycologia 95(6): 1204–1214, 2003.

No paper just this spanish one that just confirms this entity with molecular analysis.
By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2015-12-28 13:51:46 COT (-0500)

i think you could find it only in some very old revue de mycologie
“Singer (1986) suggested
that G. suberis could be a subspecies of G. spectabilis,
even though there are obvious differences between
them. Gymnopilus suberis (Maire 1928) has
smaller spores and erect, reddish squamules in the
pileus disk of young basidiomata that never are present
in G. spectabilis. In our analyses, it is clear that
G. suberis is not nested within the spectabilis-imperialis
clade but is related to other species with squamose
pilei in the aeruginosus-luteofolius clade, such
as G. subpurpuratus.”

Hi Davide,
By: zaca
2015-12-28 08:14:21 COT (-0500)

Can you give a reference for Gymnopilus suberis? Thanks.

Microscopy added.
By: zaca
2015-12-07 15:19:02 COT (-0500)

The coloration of the cap and also of the hymenium of these specimens put them in a group which in the key at the reference is referred as “Fruitbodies with traces of purple to violet colour”. Several species belong to this group, namely: G. igniculus, G. dilepis, G. luteifolius, G. peliolepis, and G. purpuratus, which are poorly represented in Europe, and at the reference only the first one is fully treated while for the remaining only some comments and observations are made, since they are not represented in Czech Rep.. From the microscopy I obtained spores with dimensions:
(6) 6.8 – 8 (8.4) x (3.9) 4.2 – 4.8 (4.9) µm
Q = (1.4) 1.5 – 1.8 (1.9) ; N = 40
Me = 7.3 × 4.5 µm ; Qe = 1.6,
which are too short for G. igniculus and in addition I find no trace of the characteristic ending cells of the pileipellis of that species. Therefore, these specimens must be one of the remaining species in the group, for which I have no reliable references. Whence, I leave it as Gymnopilus.
However, it should be mentioned the existence of several forms of cheilocystidia, some lageniform, thick walled and pigmented and other of different forms, utriform to subglobose, hialine. These are illustrated at the attached photos.

Created: 2015-10-24 16:56:46 COT (-0500)
Last modified: 2016-01-29 01:54:21 COT (-0500)
Viewed: 88 times, last viewed: 2016-11-04 12:59:04 COT (-0500)
Show Log