Observation 30499: Chroogomphus vinicolor (Peck) O.K. Mill.
When: 2009-12-17
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Growing in association with Suillus pungens.

Proposed Names

28% (1)
Recognized by sight: Can look macroscopically identical to C. vinicolor and C. rutilus (which doesn’t appear to occur in the US).
58% (2)
Recognized by sight: Red-brown to orange to ocher color, growing with pine, decurrent gills. Microscopy needed to assign to species.
Used references: Miller Jr., O.K. (2003). The Gomphidiaceae revisited: a worldwide perspective. Mycologia 95(1): 176-183.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Species concepts vs. names vs. observational experiences
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2013-11-20 19:02:56 PST (-0800)

What I’m trying to do is clarify the names that have been published vs. the current set of species concepts in the scientific literature vs. the observational experiences that MO users are having. The first of these is fairly simple given Index Fungorum and MycoBank. The second is possible given reasonable access to the literature. The last is the interesting bit where I am trying to encourage the MO community to be more careful. The most recent nomenclature and literature does not support the use of subsp. californicus based on the characteristics that Singer used to separate it out. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a distinct observational experience or even species in California that is associated with Suillus pungens. It could even be that the type that Singer chose for californicus is a member of that population. However, that isn’t known and that concept has not been circumscribed in a reliable way.

In my view using published scientific names in a loose manner just muddies the water. I would far rather you created a provisional name (say Chroogomphus “californicus” or Chroogomphus “pungensicola”) with a written down description of what you mean when you apply that name than co-opting Singer’s reported subspecies that he described based on the size of the fruiting body and the frequency of the cystidia. It is clear to me from your comments that you are apply this name based on features that are not associated with Singer’s subspecies.

Western US name
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2013-11-19 09:08:45 PST (-0800)

C. ochraceus is a western US name; Mt. Hood, OR, growing in a spot with lots of S. fuscotomentosus (I was at the type location last month). I doubt what gets called C. ochraceus from other parts of the world is the same.

The CA C. vinicolor macroscopically looks little like what I call C. vinicolor in the Northeast. I would prefer to see Singer’s subsp. californicus applied to the pungens Chroog. until more work is done on them.

By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2013-11-19 06:30:06 PST (-0800)

Again I’d really like to see this correlation documented. The ‘californicus’ subspecies was dismissed by Miller who conjectured that the differences declared by Singer were not consistent and mostly rested on what he considered to be environmental effects causing a larger size in the fruiting body. It’s also clear from Miller (and supported on MO) that C. vinicolor and C. ochraceus are not restricted to the western US. However, it appears (at least based on MO) that the corresponding Suillus species are.

Based on this idea, I’m happy to reduce my confidence in C. ochraceus, but I’m still not quite willing to say that I’d called it C. vinicolor.

The Chroogomphus with
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2013-11-18 18:06:16 PST (-0800)

Suillus pungens is Chroogomphus vinicolor subsp. californicus (Singer) Singer

Chroogomphus ochraceus appears to be only with S. fuscotomentosus

Created: 2009-12-17 18:20:24 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2013-11-19 06:18:05 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 92 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 20:48:32 PDT (-0700)
Show Log