Observation 5729: Boletus amylosporus (A.H. Smith) Wolfe
When: 2007-12-16
No herbarium specimen

Notes: This one confused me for a bit, the pores are red. This tends to me a serious taxonomic feature for Boletes, so it was a concern. But I was told sometimes this happens in B. chrysenteron if it freezes at some point in dev. Which must have happened here, everything else looks like a B. chrysenteron, but the pores are red.

So, something to look out for perhaps, sometimes the pores can be red.

Okey-dokey – I’ll give B. mendocinensis a try here… I’ll have to see if I find more of these in the future.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
I’ve been seeing these, too.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2008-01-05 12:46:37 CST (-0600)

Next itme I find another “weather/age” induced red-pored “chysenteron” I will take it home and look at it more closely. The ones that I saw were in the East Bay. Sounds like they are not so rare after all, but of course this just might be “their” (whoever they might be) big year.

Also not convinced
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2008-01-05 11:03:57 CST (-0600)
Last Monday I also collected a group of “red-pored” chrysenteron-like specimens at Tomales Bay SP, very simolar to yours. I was going to call them B. truncatus because of the lack of red in the fissures of the cap and the relatively quick bluing reactions. The spores however were rather irregular in size, some appearing truncated but not all by any means and some larger appearing ones. However, I’ve seen these superficial type of red pores even on B. edulis, so I’m not sure this is anything more than some kind of environmental feature. I’ll post some photos when I get my slides back. I did save and dry them.
Yeah, wish I could say I was that up on it…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2008-01-04 23:24:07 CST (-0600)

But when I showed these to Dr. Desjardin, he was pretty dismissive of them, and had me convinced they were just beat-up frozen, bad, old chrysenteron. And people were going over a bunch of different collections that day in class, so these got lost in the rush, and ended up in the trash. I’ll look for others, but don’t know. There is a note in the Boletes of CA that the spore size is large in this one than the normal chrys., so there might be something other than just the red pores to split the species.

I’d call it uncommon, but still very worth documenting…
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2008-01-04 23:03:58 CST (-0600)

This is the third collection I’ve seen. The others were from Humboldt Co. and Santa Barbara Co. I suspect that red-pored chrysenteron like collections are often over looked. I also think it is very possible that this is really an environmental or racial characteristic. Freezing seems unlikely to me given the collection I saw from Santa Barbara. That said, it would be really great to document this species/phenomenon.

Very RARE
By: Darvin DeShazer (darv)
2008-01-04 22:50:23 CST (-0600)

I can only find a couple of collection records for this species and no photos at all. If you sill have the specimens, they should be dried and deposited in an herbarium. NICE COLLECTION & ID.

Boletus/Xerocomus mendocinensis?
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2007-12-28 18:18:36 CST (-0600)

Arora mentions this species as essentially a red pored version of Xercomus chrysenteron. Whether it is a good species or a weather effect, I don’t know. My bias would be to list it as X. mendocinensis since that’s more specific as well as a local species (Thiers). As far as I know it has not been formally transferred from Boletus to Xerocomus, so you’d be even more justified in calling Boletus mendocinensis than you are in currently calling it Boletus chrysenteron :-).

Created: 2007-12-27 23:04:47 CST (-0600)
Last modified: 2016-09-26 12:34:29 CDT (-0500)
Viewed: 119 times, last viewed: 2016-09-26 18:24:36 CDT (-0500)
Show Log