Observation 47848: Boletaceae Chevall.
When: 2010-06-26
No herbarium specimen
0 Sequences

Notes:
I think these are the same species. They were found growing only a few inches apart. The larger one, which was riddled with maggots, showed more bluing on the cut flesh. Cross section is of smaller double cap one. Only a bit of bluing. Pores with rosy flush on smaller one, and darker brownish red on larger one. Oak wood border nearby a road.

Proposed Names

-29% (1)
Recognized by sight
58% (1)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: See comments for discussion regarding confusion surrounding genus names “Tylopilus” and “Porphyrellus”.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Tom, what you write…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2015-12-02 06:54:53 CST (-0600)

is exactly what I had initially thought. Originally, I had posted this as “Boletus” with confidence level “promising”. Here are my reasons for changing my mind.
1. Stipes look nothing like B. subvelutipes.
2. Cut context whitish, without any hint of yellow.
3. Staining pattern on cut context pale blue just above the tubes, and reddish down through the stipe.
4. Tubes deeply depressed near stipe.
5. Cut tubes not showing green.
These traits remind me of Tylopilus sordidus, a bolete similar to the Porphyrellus/Tylopilus types.

True, the gestalt of these mushrooms does not suggest Porphyrellus/Tylopilus, mainly due to lack of dark colors on the caps/stipes, and the reddish tinge on the pores. But descriptions of Porphyrellus mention reddish-brown for the pores. The closest thing I have seen in the (currently understood) genus Boletus is obs 50052.

Unfortunately, I had failed to obtain a spore print for this collection, which would have easily settled the Tylopilus/Boletus question.

red tube mouths make me think of B. subvelutipes
By: Tom Bruns (pogon)
2015-12-01 22:32:29 CST (-0600)

I think this is somewhere near B. subvelutipes because of the stature and the red tube mouths. Porphyrellus are generally darker and lack red mouths.

Scott, according to Index Fungorum…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2015-12-01 21:28:13 CST (-0600)

the “Porphyrellus” species belong in Tylopilus. But Champignons du Quebec makes a case for the genus Porphyrellus. Looking at various sources, the ones in this observation exhibit traits found listed under P. porphyrosporus, T. porphyrellus, and T. pseudoscaber. The bluing of the cut context seen here probably pointed me away from genus Tylopilus. But I do know that T. sordidus has blue-staining context, and this species seems somewhat similar to the ones being considered here. (I doubt the ones seen here represent T. sordidus.)

Given the confusion surrounding the names under discussion, as well as my failure to report a spore print color or odor, it’s doubtful we will settle the ID of this observation. But, I think this represents an impressive application of your recently constructed Bolete Filter… just for getting us to this point with this observation.

The porphyrellus mushrooms both get that red in the pores as they age
By: Scott Pavelle (Scott Pavelle)
2015-12-01 13:42:06 CST (-0600)

And the other colors match. Any noticeable smell? Any green tint to the pore staining? The only ones I’ve seen were smaller and narrower, so this is based on running it through the Filter and then saying, “That’s consistent with the one I saw…”

Created: 2010-06-29 20:24:57 CDT (-0500)
Last modified: 2015-12-01 21:30:08 CST (-0600)
Viewed: 72 times, last viewed: 2017-06-07 20:08:31 CDT (-0500)
Show Log