Observation 68382: Cerioporus leptocephalus (Jacq.) Zmitr.
When: 2011-05-30
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Pores seem a bit large for elegans.

Proposed Names

58% (1)
Recognized by sight: Abruptly black stipe base
29% (1)
Recognized by sight: On the small/large? side. Cap with innate radial lines?
Used references: Index Fungorum distinguishes between leptocephalus and varius.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
In this case
By: Rocky Houghtby
2016-05-26 09:43:54 CDT (-0400)

The new combinations, Cerioporus varius, and Cerioporus leptocephalus, both appear in “Lentinoid and Polyporoid Fungi, Two Generic Conglomerates Containing Important Medicinal Mushrooms in Molecular Perspective”, as unique species.
I’ll be candid, I’m not certain why IF has listed a synonymy between varius and leptocephalus in the past. Like many others, I often trust the discretion of Paul Kirk, and this community, without independent confirmation, especially within the context of genera I haven’t studied a great deal.

After the sloppy abortion that has recently occurred within the Boleteaceae, I think any new publications that dramatically reclassify generic concepts should be rigorously vetted. That hasn’t happened here, and now we’ve got two ambiguous taxa that don’t ever even appear in the same phylogenetic tree in the publication from which they derive.

With any luck, Zmitrivich and Kovalenko’s molecular results are available from genbank, and can be compared with North American sequences of “elegans”, “varius”, and “leptocephalus”. The fact that this sort of additional investigation is necessary makes me question the validity of the research behind Cerioporus altogether. If you are going to shatter a Generic concept into 10 new taxa, you should, at the very least, provide support for every new name, and combination, your publication creates!

I don’t enjoy being critical, or confrontational, so I’m going to just stop here, before I start complaining about the unbelievably limited number of species used in this paper. This dialog should be coming from somebody much smarter and more experienced than myself. Sorry for ranting on your obs, Dave.

I used to use the names varius and elegans…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2016-05-26 08:37:01 CDT (-0400)

but was not very comfortable with this distinction. Then, the names were synonymized on MO. Since my own preference is to use names in relation to some set of consistent morphological traits (something that is often not possible with fungi), the lumping was welcome.

Besides seeing the two different species names listed on Index Fungorum, is there evidence (DNA or otherwise) to support the existence of two separate species? It may be that due to lack of evidence supporting one/two species, IF simply lists the two names as per traditional application. Is every name listed on IF a DNA supported species?

So
By: Rocky Houghtby
2016-05-25 19:47:11 CDT (-0400)

Just flip a coin and go with whichever name you feel like?

It depends upon…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2016-05-25 14:14:54 CDT (-0400)

which convention one accepts… two distinct but very similar species, or one fairly broadly defined species. There appears to be a justification for either point of view.

In that case
By: Rocky Houghtby
2016-05-25 13:25:39 CDT (-0400)

All of these Cerioporus leptocephalus observations are labeled inaccurately, would you agree?

My understanding is…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2016-05-25 13:01:25 CDT (-0400)

that Polyporus varius and P. elegans had been lumped under one species name, and this name then became P. leptocephalus.
http://www.mushroomexpert.com/polyporus_varius.html

Index Fungorum recognizes both Cerioporus leptocpahus and C. varius as current species names.

If there are two different species, then I don’t know the distinguishing characters.

How do you know
By: Rocky Houghtby
2016-05-25 00:54:00 CDT (-0400)

That this isn’t Cerioporus varius?

Created: 2011-05-31 00:57:15 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2016-05-26 09:39:11 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 104 times, last viewed: 2016-09-23 05:07:12 CDT (-0400)
Show Log