Observation 62294: Hapalopilus nidulans (Fr.) P. Karst.

When: 2009-08-28

Collection location: Honey Creek State Natural Area, Wisconsin, USA [Click for map]

Who: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)

No specimen available

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
On the other hand,
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-01-12 01:46:02 CET (+0100)

I’m intrigued enough to make a trip to that location next season and check this one out. The log is right next to the trail there, and I should be able to find it.

Remove the pore shot?
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-01-10 02:08:20 CET (+0100)

I’m almost tempted to remove the pore shot, assuming it came from something else. On the other hand, I usually pick the most representative specimen for the pore shot, and believed this one came from the specimen in the lower right part of the upper photo – I’m struggling to match the features of the two. If I get rid of it, H.rutilans will be pretty obvious choice. And never mind Trichaptum biforme and Stereum (actually, I thought it was Hymenochaete)

4 including the stereum in the last photo
By: damon brunette (damonbrunette)
2012-01-09 16:51:46 CET (+0100)
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2012-01-09 16:48:28 CET (+0100)

I think you have 3 species in your photos. The surface of the top photos all indicate Hapalopilus in the foreground. The pore surface shot appears to be something else with dark brown (F. gilvus?) in the background. The other fungus in the Hapalopilus shot may be Trichaptum biforme.

I hope we’re talking about the same species.
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2011-01-14 22:10:24 CET (+0100)

I hope we’re talking about the same species, and F.gilva & Phellinus gilvus are the one and the same. My Phellinus gilvus (the name I prefer for some reason) are all from the standing trees, but Kuo’s, for example, are all from downed ones. I’ve come across what looks like P.gilvus on logs but they all were old and unworthy of a photograph. They’re supposed to grow both ways as far as I’ve learned. I also noticed a very interesting feature – more often than not in those samples of P.gilvus I’ve got they grow next to Trichaptum biforme, usually not overlapping but one stack above another. On the photos in question here I think I have T.biforme in the background. I’d be interested to find out what affiliation, if any, they have. Since you’re saying the bulging is not an identification feature, then this is most likely P.gilvus (or F.gilva), although I always like to gather several opinions on the matter – disputing things generates more research and sometimes produces unexpected and stunning results. While most of us tend to default on common and most publicized species, sometimes rare or seldomly mentioned species are dug up – I don’t know why most of the field guides recycle the same group of species and leave behind 80% of others.

Habitat & Growth Form
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2011-01-14 20:19:35 CET (+0100)

Interesting. I usually see F. gilva on small fallen limbs. As for the bulging base, I don’t think that is significant. That being said the caps are pale for F.gilva. They do really look like H. nidulans. You may have another species.
We need a polypore person. Tom Volk would be good.

Almost thought so.
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2011-01-14 19:18:43 CET (+0100)

I thought it was Phellinus gilvus (F.gilva) too (see the first comment). The only thing I wasn’t happy about (and still not) was the strange shape of the shelves. I have tons of P.gilvus images – all almost flat and grow on trees still standing. These fungi are bulging at the base and grow on downed tree.

Concentrate on the foregrownd.
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2011-01-14 18:33:55 CET (+0100)

Specimen in the background are different, indeed. Species in question are four or five reddish shelves in the foreground. The shot with the spore surface up comes from the specimen in the front right, i believe.

Mixed collection?
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2011-01-14 18:18:31 CET (+0100)

The top photos look like Hapalopilus rutilans but I think the pore shot and caps in the background are some thing else. Did all the fruitings have the same looking hymenium?

Dump H.nidulans?
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2011-01-14 17:56:34 CET (+0100)

So should we dump H.nidulans since pores are totally different?

a fellow midwesterner
By: damon brunette (damonbrunette)
2011-01-14 04:51:21 CET (+0100)

named Damon will send you a bottle. Email me an address.

if you
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2011-01-14 04:44:38 CET (+0100)

go to any college or high school lab they should have it and may give you some. If that doesn’t work use DRANO

How to get it?
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2011-01-14 04:29:13 CET (+0100)

Where can I get this KOH thing? Everybody’s talking about it as a means to identify lots of things, but it’s nowhere to be found. Some folks say it’s dangerous too…

By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2011-01-14 04:21:18 CET (+0100)

one drop on KOH on the cap… purple =Hapalopilus, Black =Phellinus

Different pore surface
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2011-01-14 03:52:24 CET (+0100)

One of the characteristics of H.nidulans (or H.rutilans) are angular pores that could be clearly seen with a naked eye. I have some photos of that kind, and they’re quite different from these tiny round pores. For a while I thought it was faded Picnoporus cinnabarinus, but the shape is usually different. There is a very similar looking photo of Phellinus gilvus at Mushrooms of Quebec (called Fuscoporia gilva there) at http://www.mycoquebec.org/. Usually those mushrooms are more flat too and don’t have bulging base. I’m confused…

Created: 2011-01-14 03:05:39 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2014-12-09 06:39:58 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 218 times, last viewed: 2017-06-08 14:59:20 CEST (+0200)
Show Log