Observation 53090: Craterellus lutescens Fr. (Fr.)
When: 2010-09-17
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Found acres of Cantharellus tabernensis in the swamps around my house.

[admin – Sun Nov 14 14:14:04 +0000 2010]: Changed location name from ‘ulster county, NY’ to ‘Ulster Co., New York, USA

Proposed Names

-95% (4)
Used references: Online sources
-27% (4)
Recognized by sight: with the smooth underside of the older ones it looks like what I learned as C. xanthopus but IF has that as a synonymy of C. tubaeformis… so if that’s the case these must be C. ignicolor. Does anybody have more info on this?
It is not Cantharellus tabernensis
-61% (2)
Recognized by sight: Stretched fibrils on pileus and smoother lamellae.
11% (4)
Recognized by sight: I don’t like it but for now this is the name I think!…
Used references: Synonyms in Index Fungorum
75% (5)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: Just adding another synonym and name I prefer.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Great
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2011-03-02 14:14:02 CST (-0500)

thanks for doing that, it just goes to show that fungorum isn’t always correct and with so many species out there, its not surprising.

Hi again,
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2011-03-02 06:29:16 CST (-0500)

I wrote to Paul Kirk and asked about the deprecation of lutescens in favour of tubaeformis in SpeciesFungorum. I got his reply – and it was an error. It has been corrected now (at least the important parts of the synonyms to start with).

Thank you
By: NY mushroom
2011-02-24 17:33:32 CST (-0500)

Have to give it a try. First year mushroom hunting and stumbled on these. Can’t wait for the snow to melt.

Taste
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2011-02-24 17:27:33 CST (-0500)

They are a good edible with a nice texture but rather bland.

taste
By: NY mushroom
2011-02-24 17:17:23 CST (-0500)

What does it taste like? Is it worth cooking up?

Walt
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2011-02-24 16:24:52 CST (-0500)

It’s OK, doesn’t matter now, Craterellus lutescens it is!

Herbert
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2011-02-24 16:10:27 CST (-0500)

I’m confused. I was trying to edit the genus name, not just the spelling. What did I do wrong?

Thank you Robert!
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2011-02-24 16:07:46 CST (-0500)

lutescens and tubaeformis are considered to be conserved names, and aurora is illegitimate anyway.

Craterellus aurora is not a published name.
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2011-02-24 16:02:36 CST (-0500)

Or at least I can’t find it.

Cantharellus aurora (Batsch) Kuyper, Riv. Micol. 33(3): 249 (1991) 1990

Here is the beginning of a paper supporting keeping Cantharellus lutescens but it is was published in 2002.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1554875

Another relevant paper
By: Robert Sasata (Sasata)
2011-02-24 16:01:11 CST (-0500)

Redhead et al. (2002). “(1537-1538) Proposals to Conserve the Names Cantharellus lutescens Fr.: Fr. and C. tubaeformis Fr.: Fr. (Basidiomycota) with Conserved Types” Taxon 51(3):559-562. First page preview at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1554875

.
By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2011-02-24 15:56:20 CST (-0500)

Perhaps I should not have contributed to the name editing, but maybe you should not have either. Rampant name editing which is neither published nor fully informed is NOT helpful and certainly adds to clouding the information that is currently available. Much more work needs to be published before we should be inferring the current taxonomy and democratically deciding it based on popular opinion.

Not that it really matters,
By: Robert Sasata (Sasata)
2011-02-24 15:53:03 CST (-0500)

but yes, it mentions the Dahlman et al. (2000) research on p. 941 (corroborating it); and the Kuo page was updated in February of 2006, which is before the Moncalvo paper (not “my” paper) was published.

newer phylogenetics
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2011-02-24 15:25:54 CST (-0500)

That paper is rather broad and does not address the species in question.

I should point out that http://www.mushroomexpert.com/craterellus_aurora.html was updated in 2006, the same year your paper was written.

@Ireane, I didnt mean tug of war with you, I was referring to someone else that went right behind me and edited my work. They may not realize this, but I’ve done some research.

Kuo’s site does deprecate Craterellus lutescens in favour of Craterellus aurora.

Here are their Basionyms
Agaricus aurora Batsch 1783
Cantharellus lutescens Fr. 1821

Only an act of conservation can preserve Craterellus lutescens.

newer phylogenetics
By: Robert Sasata (Sasata)
2011-02-24 15:08:29 CST (-0500)

Here’s some more recent (2006) analysis (Moncalvo et al., “The cantharelloid clade: dealing with incongruent gene trees and phylogenetic reconstruction methods” Mycologia 98(6), 2006, pp. 937-948.) PDF at http://www1.univap.br/drauzio/index_arquivos/Myco11.pdf There’s been quite a bit of molecular work in the past few years, and several new (or old) species described.

jeezuz
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2011-02-24 15:01:46 CST (-0500)

those news are eleven years old – and do not make Cantharellus/Craterellus lutescens deprecated in favour of tubaeformis (or aurora, for that matter)

I know
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2011-02-24 14:43:50 CST (-0500)

I agree with you, I tried to clean it up but I’m not gonna play edit tug of war. lol
Heres some discussion on the DNA work
http://www.mushroomexpert.com/cantharellus_clade.html

Walt
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2011-02-24 12:44:41 CST (-0500)

I looked at IndexFungorum and saw the mess.. it’s Å#(=%=)#¤ty incredible!
What species do all those synonyms refer to, and what’s the name of the other then??

I’ll stick to MycoBanks opinion until I have seen an explanation: Cantharellus lutescens is the current name for one species (synonyms C. aurora, xanthopus etc.), and Cantharellus tubaeformis is another species.

Forgot to add the smell.
By: NY mushroom
2011-02-24 10:47:01 CST (-0500)

They have a strong mango sweet smell. I believe whle growing.

Taxonomic mess
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2011-02-24 10:20:16 CST (-0500)

Well, this is what we used to call Craterellus lutescens which has been synonymized with Craterellus tubaeformis. I think it is distinct. Cantharellus aurora (not Craterellus arora) has also been put into synonymy with Craterellus tubaeformis.
Cantharellus ignicolor usually has much more defined ridges or “gills”.

Created: 2010-09-17 07:53:13 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2016-02-10 10:45:10 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 482 times, last viewed: 2016-12-05 15:46:52 CST (-0500)
Show Log