Observation 22731: Sutorius australiensis (Bougher & Thiers) Halling & Fechner
When: 2009-06-10
No herbarium specimen

Notes: an Australian “eximius” group.
these beautiful mushrooms looked a lot better before my brother stepped on them; it’s why you should never go mushrooming with a birder…

[admin – Sat Aug 14 01:59:09 +0000 2010]: Changed location name from ‘Cape Tribulation, QLD, Australia’ to ‘Cape Tribulation, Queensland, Australia’

Proposed Names

9% (7)
Recognized by sight
-12% (7)
Recognized by sight: Scabers on stalk?
41% (5)
Recognized by sight
73% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Used references: Sutorius: a new genus for Boletus eximius, Halling, et. al. Mycologia, 104(4), 2012, pp. 951–961.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Australian Obs
By: Roy Halling (royh)
2016-02-21 19:52:55 CST (-0500)

Go to these Obs Deb: 104311 and 203246.

If you need a copy of the paper, just let me know.

By: Roy Halling (royh)
2016-02-21 18:59:35 CST (-0500)

Thanks Walt.
Deb: If you know what S. eximius look like, it looks the same on the outside. If you can see the DNA, it’s different.
Also found it with Ian in NSW.
Thanks for asking.

thanks Walt.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-02-21 18:53:28 CST (-0500)

I’ll keep an eye out for ’em.

From Mycologia article by Roy Halling.
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2016-02-21 18:25:25 CST (-0500)

Habit, habitat, distribution: Reported or observed among litter, on soil or sand in forests associated with Allocasuarina, Corymbia, Eucalyptus, Lophostemon, Syncarpia. Queensland.

what does this grow with?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-02-21 13:50:02 CST (-0500)

we will be up in Queensland next month.

Good on ya
By: Roy Halling (royh)
2009-12-04 14:53:29 CST (-0500)

Noah. The leg is getting better. I should be off crutches soon. Thanks for asking.

By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2009-12-03 23:01:34 CST (-0500)

Does it really matter what we call it? first of all mycology by the popular vote doesn’t always work… I go along the lines of calling stuff by the name that it is best know by – even if we know that it is wrong. But when stuff is renamed I will use it. IS that the best thing to do?
I learned eximius and chromapes both as Tylopilus and will continue to call them that until they get renamed, (I think that they are observation under both Leccinum and Tylopilus on this site) I think it’s better to say that this is something in the Tylopilus eximius group rather then just throw the Boletacea tag on it and have it go into the endless pit of unidentifiable blurry pictures of rotting boletes…

I think that another problem with bringing stuff back to family level is we could be doing it with a lot more stuff then just this. For instance I know that Lactarius volemus is no longer a Lactarius and the fact that we have at least five species of “volemus” in eastern North America; now does that mean I should go and change all the L. volemus observations on this site to Russulaceae?

I don’t think that he even noticed that he stepped on it and I didn’t say anything. But even if I did… like Dan said, head in the clouds.

How is the leg?

I could spend several months,
By: Roy Halling (royh)
2009-12-03 22:03:54 CST (-0500)

more likely a few years, trying to comment re: your 1st 3 paragraphs.

I’m not sure I understand your 4th paragraph. Ever heard of the genus Royoungia?

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-12-03 20:45:52 CST (-0500)

You went there by bringing it up, haha. If it is called a Leccinum, then I end up thinking it is a Leccinum- if it is something else altogether, I want to know.

Rules and Regulations? I do not think this website has any specific rules and regulations, except those projected by the regular contributors…
I like that Leccinum and Tylopilus are listed as possibilities so that this observation comes up in related searches, but I was just baffled as to why some were voting in favour of genera which are clearly described below as not actually being the right placement for this mushroom.

Boletes are by no means my expertise, but if a convincing argument is made one way or another, then I think that information should be reflected in the names… That’s all. :)

So if this thing is more closely related to Fistulinella, is T. chromapes more closely related to any genus that it is not actually a part of?

If you
By: Roy Halling (royh)
2009-12-03 15:26:17 CST (-0500)

really have to have a name to hang this fungus on that fits within the rules & regs of this website, then by all means go with Boletaceae. It works for me.

I also grew up in the Smith & Thiers camp, so when hanging with the cognoscenti, Tylopilus also works for me. Just like Tylopilus chromapes is neither a Tylopilus nor a Leccinum. It also merits its own genus, separate from the eximioid ones, but we don’t want to go there do we?

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-12-03 15:13:47 CST (-0500)

Sooo, then why are Leccinum and Tylopilus being voted on favourably when this is neither??
Especially if sequencing places it closest to Fistulinella!

If it is none of those three genera, this has no generic level placement, and all three genera are within Boletaceae, then why not Boletaceae sp.??

Come on now, quit voting favourably for stuff you know it is not.

Roy, the closest, accurate grouping is Boletaceae, correct?

They’re not
By: Roy Halling (royh)
2009-12-03 08:33:35 CST (-0500)

resinous dots in the sense that this term is used to describe the ornamentation of Suillus stipes. Anatomically, “resinous dots” and “scabers” are different. Tylopilus v Leccinum . . . take your pick; Singer placed the NE USA taxon (eximus) in Leccinum because of the scabers. Smith & Thiers opted for Tylopilus because of the spore color. As already mentioned, it belongs in neither genus. The DNA evidence (3 genes, unpublished) suggests kinship with Fistulinella remote from Tylopilus.

Well if not scabers,
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2009-12-03 07:27:01 CST (-0500)

then resinous glandular dots. I tend to use the terms interchangeably, though perhaps I shouldn’t. I’ve tended rank “those things,” whatever they’re called, among the chief identifying characteristics of Leccinum.

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-12-03 06:04:47 CST (-0500)

Noah, I am sorry that the mushroom was stepped on. I get pretty pissed off when people obliviously trample mushrooms- Especially the really awesome ones.
Was he apologetic? Did you yell at him? :)

Danny, you would call those scabers? They seem less prominent, but definitely scaly, so I guess they’re scabers… Though that chevron pattern is really unusual. I can not remember seeing a Bolete with a stipe that texture.

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2009-12-03 05:14:47 CST (-0500)

I’m curious what places this in anything but Leccinum given the cap coloration and such aggressive scabers all along the stipe.

It needs a name . . .
By: Roy Halling (royh)
2009-07-02 12:35:00 CDT (-0400)

as Noah said, it doesn’t belong in either Tylopilus or Leccinum. As near as I can tell Noah’s pic is the 3rd report of this ‘austroeximius’. The other 2 are also from Queensland (Fraser Island) in Feb & June 2009. Roger Heim described a bolete from Papua New Guinea as Boletus (Tubiporus) nigroviolaceus (mushroom madness in the highlands). The color illustration matches this fungus very well. I have seen it in Indonesia (Java).

I call it Tylopilus
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2009-07-02 00:21:08 CDT (-0400)

some call it Leccinum; it belongs in neither. But until this group gets a new name we can call it by both, or Tylopiccinum (then we can describe this one…)

Birders Hmmph!
By: Dan Molter (shroomydan)
2009-07-01 14:00:18 CDT (-0400)

Always have there heads in the clouds!

By: Patrick Harvey (pg_harvey)
2009-07-01 12:13:03 CDT (-0400)

I would have thought Leccinum — are those scabers on the stalk? Or are you going from tube & flesh color?

Created: 2009-06-30 22:39:25 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2016-06-17 22:37:56 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 351 times, last viewed: 2016-10-21 08:06:19 CDT (-0400)
Show Log