Observation 25915: Lentinus tigrinus (Bull.) Fr.
When: 2009-09-21
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Initially I thought this was Neolentinus lepideus. However, the white, oblong, nonamyloid spores were too small and matched the size for Lentinus tigrinus. They were approx. 8.0 X 3.1 microns.
They were growing on an old, very decayed stump.

[admin – Sat Aug 14 01:58:33 +0000 2010]: Changed location name from ‘Big Thicket, Tyler Co. Texas’ to ‘Big Thicket, Tyler Co., Texas, USA

Proposed Names

51% (5)
Eye3 Eyes3
Used references: Mushrooms of North America by Roger Phillips
-23% (2)
Recognized by sight
Used references
Based on microscopic features
23% (5)
Recognized by sight: ~8 × 3.1 um is within lepideus range

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
host and size
By: paulnpat
2011-06-28 14:09:30 PDT (-0700)

I was favoring N lepideus because Miller(2006) separates the two by pine lepideus and hardwood tigrinus. Also the collections I have are bigger than the description of tigrinus. The species concepts don’t completely match up so what characters would you weigh the most? Below is from www.svims.ca note the spore range:
CAP 5-12 cm broad, convex or flat, sticky but dries with age, white to buff at first, breaks up into small coarse brownish scales and raised in age; flesh tough whitish, often aging or bruising yellow. ODOR anise-like, pungent or fragrant. TASTE somewhat disagreeable. GILLS decurrent, notched, adnate or adnexed, edges toothed when old, white to buff in age or in one form yellow, rusty brown or yellowish stains when bruised. STEM 3-10 cm long, 1-3 cm thick, equal, white and minutely hairy above ring, small scales (or fibrils) that curve outward develop in lower part, white to reddish brown in age. VEIL ring on stem but in age it may weather away. HABIT single to several. HABITAT on logs and stumps of conifers, occasionally hardwoods. EDIBILITY edible. MICROSTRUCTURES spores 7-15 × 3-6.5 um, long elliptical, smooth, thin-walled, not amyloid.

Tnihekr…..I haven’t seen the original descriptions
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2011-06-26 21:19:17 PDT (-0700)

but the 2006 edition of “North American Mushrooms” by Orson and Hope Miller do have both species listed (pgs 146 & 147. The two characteristics that seem to favor Lentinus tigrinus are the spores and the gill attachment. They list the spore range for L. lepideus as 7-15 X 4.0-6.5 microns vs 6.5-12.0 X 2.5-3.5 microns for L. tigrinus. I found ~ 8 X 3.1 microns.
They say the gill attachment for lepideus to be “adnexed” vs “decurrent” for tigrinus. These were not as decurrent as pictured in the book but slightly so and certainly not adnexed.
Additionally they imply that that lepideus is more likely to have a “persistent superior ring” while the tigrinus tends toward a “Partial veil…fibrillose, sometimes leaving a weak annular zone”. These had no strong evidence of either actually.
The photos of the brown scales on the L. tiginus also more closed matched these.

reply
By: jimmiev
2011-06-26 20:51:02 PDT (-0700)

walt- the substrate is a root/roots of the decaying conifer stump which are not as decayed what is visible above ground

paulnpat- long stem is because food source was below ground

ron- what favors tigrinus? and what doesn’t fit lepideus?

While I don’t run across these species routinely,
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2011-06-26 20:30:00 PDT (-0700)

my question would be why one would choose L. lepideus over L. tigrinis when the majority of characteristics seem to favor the latter….or even if they were about even?

more collections
By: paulnpat
2011-06-26 20:21:01 PDT (-0700)

I have made three collections this year from pine stumps all with small spores. Two had long stipes and one had a short stipe. All occurring in clusters. Will post photos one day. Also have made collections of N. tigrinus from a hardwood stump. Some descriptions of N. lepideus mention a wider spore size that would match.

Tnihekr
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2011-06-26 18:48:16 PDT (-0700)

Stature and substrate being well decayed point away from L. lepideus. And I know this doesn’t help but this collection looks like L. tigrinus that I have seen. My concept of L. lepideus fits this. http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/147726?obs=67990&q=55iB

Although reading Pegler’s monograph, L. lepideus is extremely variable.

why not walt
By: jimmiev
2011-06-26 18:26:01 PDT (-0700)
too small spores
By: paulnpat
2011-04-22 12:41:56 PDT (-0700)

I also found a collection in Mississippi that I thought was N. lepideus. The spores were 8-10×3-4. Also no ring and appressed scales on the pileus. N. ponderosus is also known from Central America. THere is a possibility that its range also extends into the S.E.United States and that some collections have been misidentified. More evidence is needed to clarify the situation.

Lentinus ponderosus seems to be
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2011-04-21 15:36:59 PDT (-0700)

limited to higher elevation pines in the west. Also, it usually has larger blockier scales rather than the smaller blackish scales of it’s Gulf Coast cousins.

range
By: paulnpat
2011-04-21 06:57:05 PDT (-0700)

Neolentinus ponderosus is a western species and similar to N. lepideus. Could its range extend into the east?

Created: 2009-09-28 19:49:09 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2016-05-04 19:52:41 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 378 times, last viewed: 2016-11-06 19:30:18 PST (-0800)
Show Log