Observation 27237: Pycnoporus sanguineus (L.) Murrill
When: 2008-07-13
No herbarium specimen

Notes: CLASS B

Specimen collected in the general vicinity of a known-contaminated area. No readily noticeable signs of contamination nearby.

Collected for the Amazon Mycorenewal Project.

Proposed Names

75% (3)
Recognized by sight
94% (3)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
“sensu auct.”
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-01-16 15:22:48 PST (-0800)

usually means a misinterpretation. Not necessarily wrong – just that it differs from the current use of the name.

It’s important to use the right author and combination, because almost every species that was named and described back in the 18th century has been interpreted differently by different authors.
If Paul Gamboa has found convincing original descriptions and/or type collections of both species, he might be right and could try to propose that they are the same – if he doesn’t like the idea of following consensus about the names..

I have not been able to find descriptions by Linnaeus (sanguineus), Jacquin (cinnabarinus), or Fries (coccineus) only interpretations by others, and they really ARE a mess.

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2010-01-16 09:39:41 PST (-0800)

Mycologist Paul Gamboa of the Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito has proposed that P. cinnabarinus and P. sanguineus are two names for the same species, with the name differentiation referring only to those which are found in either the lowlands (P. sanguineus) or highlands (P. cinnabarinus) of Ecuador.

very confusing
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2009-12-11 23:13:10 PST (-0800)

it’s time we get these red Pycnopori settled once and for all.

Index Fungorum has, for the moment, made a mess out of the task of differentiating between P. coccineus, P. cinnabarinus, and P. sanguineus. Pycnoporus sanguineus sensu Hood and Pycnoporus cinnabarinus sensu auct. NZ are listed as synonymous with Pycnoporus coccineus (Fr.) Bondartsev & Singer (1941), while Pycnoporus sanguineus (L.) Murrill (1904) and Pycnoporus cinnabarinus (Jacq.) P. Karst. (and two variations thereof) remain unique. I’m coming to think that this portion of the confusion amounts to my illiteracy in these finer points of binomial nomenclature more than any error on the part of the index or its contributors.

That aside, it appears there are some substrate and/or habitat distinctions which separate one or another of the Pycnoporus spp., but whatever they are, they don’t appear to be consistent across all sources (surprise, surprise), or at least not enough to use as a rule of thumb for identification, eg: coniferous vs. deciduous substrate, temperate vs. alpine vs. tropical/subtropical, known or not known to exist in the region. When considering a single species, I find there is overlap regarding almost all of the supposed “indicators.” Perhaps someone with some background would like to set the record straight.

Created: 2009-10-24 01:18:20 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2011-05-13 19:55:15 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 263 times, last viewed: 2016-12-13 04:27:13 PST (-0800)
Show Log