Observation 67937: Polyporus brumalis (Pers.) Fr.
When: 2009-05-20
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Original Herbarium Label: Polyporus brumalis (Pers.) Fr.

This particular collection was examined and annotated by Jim Ginns who wrote the following:

OC2090520-004 Polyporus brumalis Pers.:Fr. With very short tubes, less than 0.1 mm deep, and few basidia these are probably a young fruiting bodies. The pores are small, 5-6 per mm, whereas in P. brumalis they are 3-4 (Gilb. & Ryv. 1987, N. Amer. Polypores vol. 2). The margin is even, not ciliate or fimbriate as it “often” is in P. brumalis (Gilb. & Ryv. 1987). Basidia rare, 6 µm diam. Basidiospores few, only 3 found, ellipsoid, slightly curved, 6-9 × 3.0-3.5 µm, but smaller in _P. brumalis at 6-7.5 × 2-2.5 µm (Gilb. & Ryv. 1987). At the base of one stipe there is a black cuticle made up of a palisade of hyphal tips that are covered with a thick, yellow-brown resin. Such a cuticle is reported to occur in “old basidiocarps” of P. brumalis (Nuneez and Ryv., 1995. Polyporus and related genera. Synop. Fung. 10: 16, Oslo). In conclusion, although this collection differs in some features from the description in Gilb. & Ryv. (1987), I think P. brumalis is the best name for the collection.
Jim Ginns, 4 Apr 2011

Proposed Names

11% (4)
Recognized by sight: pore size, spore size, cap structure – young specimen
-28% (1)
Recognized by sight: Just throwing another name out there.
86% (1)
Eye3 Eyes3
Used references: Jim Ginns, pers.comm. 2011-04-04

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
I’m not telling you, AOC
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-02-05 22:23:56 PST (-0800)

I’m telling everyone, in the event that one observation might inform us as to the identity of the other.

I too pine for another joint Sava and myxomop Sauvie Island foray. Hopefully you’ll join us.

Why do you tell me this?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-02-05 09:46:27 PST (-0800)

MO Observation # 65053 is not ours. I wish it were, Sauvie Island is a mystical place and our sacred pilgrimage site. Adolf

another unID-ed Polyporus from the PNW
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-02-05 09:34:00 PST (-0800)
Who knows what it is
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-02-05 09:15:49 PST (-0800)

I checked the original collection and it is still labelled “Polyporus brumalis” :-). As for Polyporus leptocephalus: Jim Ginns is a retired mycologist who was once the curator of Canadian national mycological herbarium in Ottawa, and I just assume that he would not spend so much time on this particular specimen, if it were indeed Polyporus leptocephalus. I don’t want to put down your suggestions, you have helped us many times, but I feel that this P. leptocephalus one in not correct.
I love Mushroom Observer and its features (such as this interactive mode) and I would like to see it as an integral part of all mycological herbarium databases. One thing that would have to be changed to “sell” this system to the herbarium curators is its handling the “annotation notes”. (If we can speak about annotations in this case, when people did not see the real specimen, but only the MO “Images”.) In normal herbaria, annotation notes would contain the name, full name of one who annotated the specimen, date, and if possible, also the reason for the proposed name change. Then it should be on the herbarium curator to accept or ignore that annotation. Without this formal procedure, one can put forward any name that does not make sense, as I proved by my Polyporus badius prank. Adolf

Adolf
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-02-05 04:32:19 PST (-0800)

I did actually read Ginns’ annotations carefully, and that is why I suggested leptocephalus. In his notes the pores are even smaller than in Oluna’s sketch. Unfortunately he found very few spores (maybe immature), but I can’t see anything speaking against leptocephalus.

It’s of course not Polyporus badius. It’s supposed to be a species without clamps, hence the other genus name, Royoporus..

Amateurs vs. Professionals
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-02-04 20:53:32 PST (-0800)

If you want to know my opinion about amateurs in botany, read this:
http://bomi.ou.edu/ben/ben309.html
Amateurs in mycology are even more important!
Professionals in my terminology are those people who have to spend most of their time working on research projects and writing research proposals. Even among them you find useful specialists, usually in the groups that are difficult to handle without an institutional base. For them to use MO is too time consuming and they usually stumble over some deficiencies of the MO system (i.e, the lack of rigorous “annotation” procedures, instability of the Observation names, lots of poor submissions, etc.) You have to be glad that some of them are at least lurking in MO and you should not discriminate them by ignoring their input (i.e., comments and identifications). When I gave this suggestion to the MO guru, their answer was that it would be difficult to grade those specialists. Why would we have to grade them?

Have a closer look at our observations!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-02-04 20:30:46 PST (-0800)

From my earlier communication you might have got the impression that I resent your comments and suggestions. The opposite is true. We are using Mushroom Observer for storing our photos, microphotos and drawings that should go with our herbarium specimens. We have been working on the macrofungi inventory of Observatory Hill in Victoria, BC, and after 8 years we have something over 1,150 species from the area of about 75 ha (? 180 acres). With that number, it is impossible to expect that all the specimens will be identified correctly. I made three lists in MO that should allow people to go through our observations and give us their feedback:
http://mushroomobserver.org/species_list/show_species_list/383 – Polypores s.l.
http://mushroomobserver.org/species_list/show_species_list/385 – Corticiales
http://mushroomobserver.org/species_list/show_species_list/387 – Ascomycota
We would greatly appreciate if you could have a look at our observations and tell us about any misidentifications or other mistakes, so we could fix it on our collection labels. Thanks, Adolf & Oluna

The elephant in the room here…
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-02-04 20:04:10 PST (-0800)

is that many “amateurs” are far better than many “professionals”. This is not a secret.

Right now, I would say that if we were to have an imaginary metric weighing ‘field sense’, amount of work done towards a mapping initiative, number of species known, and rate of correct identification, the amateurs who actually care about taxonomy would probably take it.

Certainly most of the ‘Top Five’ slots in North America would go to amateurs, hands down.

That said, they need to be empowered to describe and document without ‘professional’ intervention.

Mushroom identification (not phylogeny, mind you) is advanced stamp collecting. You don’t need a PhD to do it, and it may actually get in the way.

AOC
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-02-04 19:01:24 PST (-0800)

The point system is flawed, but the equating of points awarded/obtained with “authority” on the site is not a mandatory perspective, nor is it even necessarily an implied one. I have just shot to the number three position in that list, quite arbitrarily, by bulk adding a sh*t ton of new names to the database. I hardly think that makes me more (or less) qualified to comment on one observation or another. Anyone that uses the site long enough and gets to know some of its membership will agree. That one’s “score” impacts the weight of their votes does, in fact, give the opposite impression — namely that high-ranking contributors know more of what they’re talking about — but in practice we all trust and revere Else way, way more than her “ranking” might imply.

I resent your comment that this site ignores “professional” mycologists. If you mean to say it ignores experts, paid or unpaid, you are sorely mistaken. The regular membership here have a keen eye for people who know what they’re talking about. I suspect I speak for more than myself when I say that we develop our own kind of “ranking” system which has everything to do with the quality of another user’s contributions over sheer quantity. A certain self-proclaimed “European Coprinologist” makes infrequent appearances here. His scorecard puts him way, way down on the list, but he quite obviously knows his deliquescent fungi better than just about anyone else on the site. Paying enough attention to the site’s activity makes that clear.

If there’s anything I see Mushroom Observer striving for, it’s egalitarianism and accessibility. That includes a sometimes frustratingly democratic system of consensus based voting, which is also not without flaws. It also includes a debate platform which does not vary it’s soapbox size to accommodate the “experience” of the speaker, nor should it. If you would prefer that your (or your friends’) IDs not be contested, right or wrong, a public website is hardly the place to expect passive acquiescence.

No kdding!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-02-04 18:47:21 PST (-0800)

I am sorry, but I trust that Jim Ginns would recognize Polyporus leptocephalus if our specimen were that species. Sometimes, you know, there are also some atypical or young specimens that are difficult to identify if you have them in hand. I understand that it is easier to ID them, if you just see their photos. Adolf

NA polypores
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2013-02-04 18:28:54 PST (-0800)

This is NOT your mushroom…

Well said Adolf
By: damon brunette (damonbrunette)
2013-02-04 16:24:49 PST (-0800)

By your own accounts " Professional mycologists can lurk behind the scenes, but they have to keep quiet"
Since you have not kept quiet, it shows that not only are you NOT a professional, but can’t have rational professional conduct on this “Monopoly” game site.
If you don’t want a comment on the picture, easy enough not to put one up.

Mushroom Observer generally ignores speciealists
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-02-04 15:49:48 PST (-0800)

I am sorry, but I would go with the specialist who saw and examined the specimen than with people who just saw the photo. Mushroom Observer, on the other hand, ignores professional mycologists. I heard some sad complaints from a CA specialist in Lepiota s.lat. that her identifications are ignored because she has not posted any observations. As you may know, the expertise is measured by the log(10) of posted observations and in that case, she does not have any chance. Professional mycologists can lurk behind the scenes, but they have to keep quite. Even if their suggestions are posted by the original collector.

Mushroom Observer is an amazing system for handling all additional material that goes with the REAL HERABRIUM COLLECTIONS, but the Moinopoly game aspect makes it a children play in eyes of professional mycologists. One does not stop to be surprised. When I started this not half an hour ago, I was writing a comment to Polyporus [sp.], now it is suddenly Polyporus leptocephalus. I have to finish fast, who knows what it will be five minutes from now! Adolf

I agree with Noah
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2013-02-04 14:47:41 PST (-0800)
I strongly disagree
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2013-02-04 14:40:38 PST (-0800)

with Jim Ginns’ assessment that P. brumalis is the best name to apply to it. It doesn’t match it at all…

By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-02-04 14:31:19 PST (-0800)

It’s not clear to me whether Irene’s identification was posted before or after I posted Jim Ginns’ annotation. Adolf

P. brumalis is the best name for [this] collection”
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-02-04 12:53:55 PST (-0800)

This particular collection was examined and annotated by Jim Ginns who wrote the following:

OC2090520-004 Polyporus brumalis Pers.:Fr. With very short tubes, less than 0.1 mm deep, and few basidia these are probably a young fruiting bodies. The pores are small, 5-6 per mm, whereas in P. brumalis they are 3-4 (Gilb. & Ryv. 1987, N. Amer. Polypores vol. 2). The margin is even, not ciliate or fimbriate as it “often” is in P. brumalis (Gilb. & Ryv. 1987). Basidia rare, 6 µm diam. Basidiospores few, only 3 found, ellipsoid, slightly curved, 6-9 × 3.0-3.5 µm, but smaller in _P. brumalis at 6-7.5 × 2-2.5 µm (Gilb. & Ryv. 1987). At the base of one stipe there is a black cuticle made up of a palisade of hyphal tips that are covered with a thick, yellow-brown resin. Such a cuticle is reported to occur in “old basidiocarps” of P. brumalis (Nuneez and Ryv., 1995. Polyporus and related genera. Synop. Fung. 10: 16, Oslo). In conclusion, although this collection differs in some features from the description in Gilb. & Ryv. (1987), I think P. brumalis is the best name for the collection.
Jim Ginns, 4 Apr 2011

Small pores
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2013-02-04 12:45:48 PST (-0800)

fit some Albatrellus species. If there was yellow staining, this would be a possibility.
http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/256181?q=12FuS&size=huge
This does not look like any Polyporus brumalis I have ever seen and the collection date would be unusual for immature fruitings. Like so many fungi, it is much easier to say what it is not rather than what it is.

-
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2013-02-04 12:10:01 PST (-0800)

What I know as P. brumalis is a slender, centrally stiped, dark capped polypore that doesn’t look like this…

What’s wrong with Polyporus brumalis?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-02-04 10:40:46 PST (-0800)

We consulted this collection with Jim Ginns and he confirmed that it was a young Polyporus brumalis. Do you have a better suggestion and what is wrong with Jim Ginns identification? AOC

By: damon brunette (damonbrunette)
2013-02-04 10:18:45 PST (-0800)

Which macro characteristics speak to brumalis for this ob? Maybe it was labeled incorrectly. I cant find one OB on MO that resembles this. I know nothing about the micro characteristics so that may be enough to go upon…

Created: 2011-05-22 22:59:00 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2015-11-22 14:51:25 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 534 times, last viewed: 2016-10-25 05:04:54 PDT (-0700)
Show Log