Notes: Found under pine.
The micro-shots are of a spine at 1000x in KOH. The basidia are long, narrow, 4-spored with long sterimata. No clamp connections were obs. The spores are ellipsiod, warted/nodulose. The measured spore size is: length – 4.62 +/- 0.45 (err 0.17) um, width – 3.31 +/- 0.25 um (err: 0.11) – q : 1.41 +/- 0.19, on 8 spores.
The micro-shots kinda came out out of focus, unfortunately. And there weren’t a lot of spores from the spine there. But there are enough to get an accurate enough spore size. It seems that pretty much all Hydnellums have about the same size spores, except for this one. H. chrysinum has consistently significantly smaller spores. The spore size here, and the colors, with the orange to brown spines, match the descriptions for H. chrysinum. Except that this species was named from Nova Scotia in Canada, and is known under hardwoods in the east coast. Here it is under pines in California.
This is a companion obs. to this one:
To demonstrate the two different orange Hydnellums in California. What I’ve seen roughly in the past (just from my memory, so take this as you will…), this one is the more common species seen. More or less a few found every year. H. aurantiacum is rather rare in coastal California.
|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||6.10||1||(douglas)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I have only seen this abstract:
“*WESTMORELAND, SEAN E. AND VOLK, THOMAS J. Department of Biology, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse WI 54601. Comparison of chemosystematics and ITS sequencing in the systematics of Hydnellum (Basidiomycota, Thelephoraceae).
CHUMS, or chemosystematics with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using mass spectroscopy, is a newly created technique that we’ve developed for delimiting Hydnellum species based on chemical differences. The CHUMS method generates data based on the presence or absence of chemical compounds, which are then analyzed to determine relatedness. A total of 54 compounds were scrutinized to construct a chemical “sequence,” somewhat akin to a nucleotide sequence, that can be analyzed using phylogenetic programs.
This presentation compares the CHUMS data with morphological and molecular (DNA seq) studies of Hydnellum species. Although previous morphological and chemical works have been useful, there are many disagreements between authors as to the correct delimitation and systematic placement of Hydnellum species.
Ninety-nine collections were examined morphologically, 36 collections were analyzed by comparing ITS sequences, and 15 collections were examined with CHUMS. From these data we are able to construct phylogenies that show relatedness of species. All three lines of evidence were combined (morphological, chemical, and DNA) to determine final systematic and taxonomic placements of 15 Hydnellum species. There is some level of congruence of phylogenetic trees between the three techniques, but also some significant differences in relatedness of some species."
In order to sort out the taxonomy, comparisons between european and american collections are needed. I’d like to know if they did.. We still have many questionmarks, around these orange ones, peckii/diabolus, scrobiculatum, concrescens etc.
I’ll try to get a collection of auratile from Gotland this fall – again. I’ve had problems with Hydnellums every year, not managing to get them dry enough to avoid molding before they are home..
Yeah, oh, the master’s thesis on Hydnellum… No I don’t have a copy. I didn’t find out. I’ve heard rumors of people in California that might have a copy, I’ll try and get a copy from them if I can.
Yeah, look at that, those are the same yes. Those two obs. from Debbie there are the same as the somewhat common orange Hydnellum, that I’ve id’ed as Hydnellum chrysinum here.
I guess I looked at H, auratile, as described in the Champignons de Suisse tome 2, but it didn’t have the right size spores. There seems to be so little to go on with Hydnellum under the scope really… but lets see, in that book it has H. auratile as spore size 5 – 5.3 × 3.8 – 4.5 um. In the Hydnums of Florida paper it has H. chrysinum 4-6 × 3.2-5. Which isn’t that different, but it does have the length go below 5um at least. And the ave. I found was under 5um long.
Ok, and in the Hydnum of Florida paper there are mistakes and typos, and measurements do seem rough, and I only measure 8 spores here, I could get better. But still the combination of macro and fairly good enough micro, seems to point more for the description of Hydnellum chrysinum.
It would be good to get more info, if you want. It is kinda over for CA, but if you want, and remind me next year… I’d be willing to save some more of these, since they do seem to be found each year, and do a better job of some more. And you can grab some H. auratile from there, and do a better job on those, and see what numbers come out?
I guess I did what I wanted to for this year? I think I showed there is something that matches well enough H. aurantiacum, and something that doesn’t but matches well enough H. chrysinum,
Do you think that your chrysinum is the same as these obses: http://mushroomobserver.org/observer/index_observation?q=44Ss ?
I don’t know if you have been looking at Hydnellum sequences from Genbank yet. At least they do support the occurence of aurantiacum in California, but one collection from Santa Fe differs a bit – maybe enough to be yet another species.
I also found that the sequence of “chrysinum” from Florida is very close to the european species H. auratile, but not identical.
Funny that Harrison mentioned in his original description of chrysinum that a Swedish collection “appears identical with the N.S. species”. What he saw then, must have been H. auratile.
You mentioned before that you wanted to check on the master’s thesis of Tom Volk’s student on Hydnellum. Did you find any paper? I haven’t found anything published, only announcements about speeches at myco meetings in 2004…
No, I don’t think so.
Also I took another Hydnellum, and did the same thing to it, and got different spore sizes, that still agree with descriptions for that one. I’ll post that one later tonight I think.
if there wern’t many spores seen, could the ones that you did see just be immature and therefore smaller?
Created: 2011-04-06 19:28:31 CST (+0800)
Last modified: 2011-04-07 16:02:04 CST (+0800)
Viewed: 175 times, last viewed: 2017-08-13 01:52:16 CST (+0800)