Observation 7431: Phylloporus Quél.
When: 2001-03-18
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Decurrent gills in CA specimen; also note unusual, acentric stipe placement.

Proposed Names

-12% (2)
Recognized by sight: Fits well except for unusual stipe placement.
30% (4)
Recognized by sight: Olive cap color
32% (4)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: may be neither; both this collections and one other that I made in the same year had eccentric stipes. P. arenicola in theory doesn’t have decurrent gills, either.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Variability
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2012-10-25 01:12:57 CDT (-0400)

In my experience (blended with objective judgement), all of these features are variable enough to render them not useful in making field determinations. I suppose I could leave it at Phylloporus sp., but I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that there is a P. arenicola look-alike on this part of the CA Coast.

My guess is that P. arenicola bluing/decurrency dogma is bogus, and the eccentricity of the stipe is within the morphological range of Phylloporus (as it is to some degree for many other genera).

I am not saying that there definitely aren’t other taxa of this genus here, but I’d like to see some solid evidence pointing that way before introducing this suite of characters as being contraindicative of P. arenicola.

why attempt to squash this into a familiar “known”…
By: David Rust (incredulis)
2012-10-24 20:58:56 CDT (-0400)

when so many features (blues and reddens, decurrent gills, eccentric stipe)
DON’T fit?

It’s certainly Phylloporus…beyond that, we don’t know and won’t likely ever know, at least for this unsaved collection.

Created: 2008-05-03 12:14:22 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2013-04-12 13:49:10 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 103 times, last viewed: 2016-10-22 16:38:17 CDT (-0400)
Show Log