Observation 74956: Boletus edulis group
When: 2011-08-30
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

64% (5)
Recognized by sight
25% (4)
Recognized by sight
72% (6)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
All respect
By: Eva Skific (Evica)
2011-09-01 02:33:36 CEST (+0200)
to Walter but this time Igor was right I do not know much, however i know B. pallidus and this one is not

It is same bolet as observation 74953

What wrong with telephone??

By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2011-09-01 01:18:56 CEST (+0200)

We agree to disagree.

By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2011-08-31 21:26:00 CEST (+0200)

Thank you so much for responding and sharing your identification rationale.

I’ve collected lots of B. pallidus earlier this month (Obs.73603), so my memory is quite fresh, and I can attest to the fact that the stipe of the pallid bolete was always glabrous (non-reticulated), white and developing brown stains/streaks as it aged and after being handled. The stipe of the bolete in question is definitely reticulated over the entire length, (unfortunately, the quality of the pic reduces the sharpness of fine details), and it lacks the characteristic brown discoloration of B. pallidus that should be present in the mature basidiocarp, such as this one. As far as the ostensibly bluish discoloration of the pore mouths near the stipe is concerned, it might have to do more with the way the camera interprets the colors at this range and angle of projection (sharper angle and more tubes per unit of length, seeing more of the tube wall, etc.). You can see the same effect in Obs. 74953 (image 165240), though the color there looks pinkish-brown to me.

So, it looks like both of us will stand our ground, but I am sure we wouldn’t be having this discussion if Eva could provide us with additional info regarding this bolete. Thank you for your patience, and no hard feelings I hope.

By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2011-08-31 15:46:19 CEST (+0200)

Reticulations are weak at best. Staining of the tubes looks very likely based on the discoloration on this specimen which is undamaged. Also although not helpful, having seen a lot of B. pallidus over the years this looks right.

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2011-08-31 05:31:47 CEST (+0200)

let’s take the fungus nerdrage dial back a few clicks from 11 and try a good old fashioned “Fellow user, what makes you think competing name proposal as opposed to author’s name proposal?” drive-by votes happen all the time. shouldn’t let it bruise you too much.

By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2011-08-31 04:11:43 CEST (+0200)

Based on the information gathered from the pics, I think this bolete isn’t an unreasonable candidate for placement into the B. edulis group. Its morphological features, such as the size, overall shape, pileus color, color of the pore mouths, as well as the characteristic white reticulation on the brownish stipe all point toward such an assignment. With all due respect, casting a “doubtful” vote on my ID without providing any reasoning is not particularly convincing, especially for a mycologist of your caliber. Which clade would you place it in?

Not B. pallidus
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2011-08-31 00:31:23 CEST (+0200)

Upon a blow up of the second picture, the stipe is visibly reticulated, so it belongs to B. edulis group. I think this may be similar to Obs. #74953.

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2011-08-30 23:08:08 CEST (+0200)

a phone?

Created: 2011-08-30 20:12:27 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2011-09-03 04:20:42 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 223 times, last viewed: 2016-10-25 12:33:16 CEST (+0200)
Show Log