Observation 50745: Boletus chrysenteron Bull.
When: 2010-08-19
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

42% (8)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight
-26% (3)
Recognized by sight: Because of the reddish subcutis
11% (3)
Recognized by sight: I’d call it a pale-stiped form of X. zelleri
19% (6)
Recognized by sight
-26% (3)
Used references: Pilze der Schweiz Band 3

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
The role of taxonomic databases…
By: Andreas (AK_CCM)
2011-07-22 04:26:04 CDT (-0400)

Debbie, I think we should see taxonomic databases like indexfungorum.org or mycobank.org (here the taxon chrysenteron is still in the genus Xerocomus) only as secondary sources. Crucial are the primary sources in the form of journal articles and monographs as well as expert opinions.

But I think the current name is not so important as long as we know the fungus which we discuss about.

I am pleased at least on the lively discussion – thanks at all.

Regards, Andreas

Yes and no…
By: damon brunette (damonbrunette)
2011-07-21 15:15:27 CDT (-0400)

I always use reagents for boletes. But unfortuntely that has come at a price as well. I wont ever have the eye Noah does by critically studying and taking note of the macro features like he does.

When in doubt,
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2011-07-21 14:48:55 CDT (-0400)

use macrochemical tests. Frequently, they are more unequivocal than trying to match your bolete, whose appearance is subject to change due to the elements, local wildlife and age, to a morphological description from a reliable reference. Everyone who is in the “bolete identification business” should have a dropper bottle of 3-5% KOH (aq), 14% ammonia (aq), and 10% iron(II) sulfate (aq) in the field or at home. These are inexpensive and easily procurable chemicals. To quote the big bolete book, p.371: “…the white context of ‘Red-Cracked bolete’, B. chrysenteron, stains lemon-yellow to olive with this reagent [iron sulfate]”. That, I am sure, will readily separate it from B. dryophilus, B. zelleri, and other look-alikes growing in Cali.

As far as the European names are concerned, i.e., B. chrysenteron & X. chrysenteron, which to my knowledge happen to be synonimous, one has to provide a proof (in the form of a genetic match) that the mushroom that goes by this name on the North American continent is the same as the one from the Old World. Perhaps, such an evidence already exists…

Gimme a logical argument
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2011-07-21 13:15:39 CDT (-0400)

I agree that there’s no problem having multiple names to reflect confusion, but currently the vote favors B. chrysenteron which I do have a problem with.

I’d like to see anyone make a sound argument that this should be called Boletus chrysenteron or Xercomus chrysenteron based on such an equivocal working knowledge of the concept and these two photographs…

Apparently some of you “I’d call it that” crowd feel that there exists a strong form of such an argument.

And by sound, I mean something more than just stating “chrysenteron is a better fit than Boletus”.

must be HOT back there in the east right now…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-07-21 12:32:10 CDT (-0400)

sure is a lotta heat over this bolete. ;)

chrysenteron is a better fit than just boletus.

when the western NA taxonomy changes through publication, we can change the name, but this at least puts it into a searchable category for a locally known mushroom. anyone viewing this sighting can see that there has been discussion, and that perhaps there is a bit of controversy over this ID. no problem with that.

The dark cap
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2011-07-21 12:18:56 CDT (-0400)

gets light in some collections.

I just don’t understand why we should slap a stupid European name on a PHOTOGRAPH of a species that has characteristics of at least two local Xerocomus/Boletus species.

The need for certainty really doesn’t get us anywhere here… we are just adding unverified speculation to a database of photographs on an already very confusing group of species.

Thats a lot’a missing for a bolete!
By: tracey (Tracey Higgins)
2011-07-21 12:12:03 CDT (-0400)
well, that and the really dark cap…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-07-21 12:01:59 CDT (-0400)

also missing.

how quickly did this bolete blue, if it all?

Index Fungorum has put chrysenteron back into Boletus rather than Xerocomus. Zelleri is apparently unsettled still…no green entry for that one, and both Xerocomus and Boletus are listed for the species of zelleri in blue.

By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2011-07-21 11:42:15 CDT (-0400)

The only thing missing for X. zelleri is a redder stipe.
Also the cap is a bit more cracked than I’d expect for that species but otherwise:

Wrinkled/velvety looking
Purple to pinkish-red
No bluing

By: Andreas (AK_CCM)
2011-07-21 10:43:16 CDT (-0400)

You could see the reddish subcutis at the margin of the caps and at the rifts of the cutis which is typical for Xerocomus pruinatus. Also the stipes are showing marginelly red colors, the single fruitbody at the 2nd photo looks completely yellow.

Why do you think this is Xerocomus chrysenteron (syn. Boletus chrysenteron)?

Too bad that there’s no picture with a cross section of a fruitboy.

Regards, Andreas

Created: 2010-08-19 13:58:10 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2011-07-22 04:08:08 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 668 times, last viewed: 2016-10-24 03:53:14 CDT (-0400)
Show Log