Observation 33295: Cantharellus cascadensis Dunham, O’Dell & R. Molina
When: 2010-02-07
No herbarium specimen

Notes: the duff lies, nothing but redwood for hundreds of feet

Proposed Names

-19% (2)
Recognized by sight: these look too slender for californicus, plus, no live oak.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
cascadensis
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2011-11-11 17:12:26 PST (-0800)

is having a good year. Talking to people up in OR, it’s one of the best they have seen for it. (since making the split)
It’s common in far northern CA on the coast and inland as well. I hear Lake Co. is having a banner year for it as well.

who knows?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-11-11 15:19:32 PST (-0800)

conjecture is cheap.

on the other hand, now that we have a better species concept for cascadensis, we sure are seeing it everywhere! ;)

I agree that these fruit bodies might be a pretty good match: yellowish rather than orange caps, pale hymenium, thin cap edge. yada yada yada.
other than the mushroom in the upper right, none show a clavate base that I can see, but I guess that’s why they call it the “cryptic chanterelle.”

Roots…
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2011-11-11 14:48:17 PST (-0800)

Go long and far.
I have been hunting in youngish Tanoak-Madrone woods that have a Douglas-fir here and there.
Well, I have been finding Suillus 100 feet plus from these 8-10" trees.
Last week I found S. borealis in a doug-fir forest, After a long search I found a single three foot tall Sugar Pine about 15 feet away.

I’m not saying that Cantharellus don’t grow with Redwood (never say never) I’m just highly skeptical of people not looking hard enough or at the right things…

redwoods
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2010-02-08 14:42:50 PST (-0800)

Bill Friedman told me that chanterelles grow with redwood occasionally.

Redwoods are endo, but…
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2010-02-08 10:46:15 PST (-0800)

Just a couple days ago I found them on a deep, dark, entirely redwood-covered slope.
And I made the now-familiar post-hoc amendments to my observation by saying “well there must have been an oak sapling nearby” or “there MUST have been roots from hundreds of feet away”.
But rather than mistrust our eyes and intuition on principle, we might back off of strict blanket statement about the mycorrhizal status of chanterelles (for now).
I, for one, am beginning to suspect that Cantharellus may not exist as a mycorrhizal partner all the time.

tan oak leaves…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-02-08 07:27:27 PST (-0800)

throughout the duff. why not roots below? and maybe some fir tucked here and there?

the only
By: Shane Marsh (Mushane)
2010-02-07 20:58:48 PST (-0800)

tanoaks/liveoaks nearby were way up a hill a few hundred feet, this was under ONLY redwood unless the roots reached that far

Another tree?
By: Darvin DeShazer (darv)
2010-02-07 20:40:45 PST (-0800)

Redwoods are endomycorrhizal, so there HAS to be some other tree near by.

Created: 2010-02-07 18:35:00 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2011-11-11 15:09:42 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 295 times, last viewed: 2016-09-25 21:11:56 PDT (-0700)
Show Log