Observation 85928: Phlebia Fr.
When: 2011-07-23
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

30% (2)
Eye3
Recognized by sight
56% (1)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
The Book.
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-01-15 19:39:32 EST (-0500)

I still want my book :-)

It’s not that bad,
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2012-01-11 19:43:20 EST (-0500)

there are a lot of synonyms with these 216 names mentioned in MycoBank. I sorted out 20 at least. So not even 200 to start with.
And many have been transferred to different genera, so I think 120-150 are more realistic worldwide.

I surrender.
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-01-11 19:16:33 EST (-0500)

OK, OK, guys – I give up. I agree (somewhat) that microscopy these days is a necessary evil. But please, WOULD SOMEONE PRODUCE FULL-COLOR CATALOG OF THOSE 216 SPECIES OF PHLEBIA FOR ME. I’ve already began putting some money aside, since the book, printed in one copy (for me) will be prohibitively expensive. :-)

As this is in desperate need of an ID,
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2012-01-10 12:11:02 EST (-0500)

I shall throw one name unto the stake, Phlebia rufa. But then again you’ll know :)
And I do not know if this is occurring in North America too …
Just a WILD guess by the naked eye out of more than 200 other possibilities. You know that’s a heck of a lot ;)

To further roil
By: Paul Sadowski (pabloski)
2012-01-10 11:52:29 EST (-0500)

the conversation, MycoBank lists 216 species of Phlebia

We do see a lot of Phlebia tremellosa and radiata around NYC and this looks like neither. The surface seems more tuberculate than folded. There can also be a reflexed margin not the hispid margin we see here. And what about substrate?

I do believe that some microscopy is necessary for many crust fungi.

Heck, I didn’t mean to heckle
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-01-10 00:26:08 EST (-0500)

I guess I was misunderstood – I have no beef with Gerhard’s approach. But I have my own approach too – except, I’m hampered by lack of a good visual information. I don’t take into account sites like Flickr – anybody can post a photo of a lump of coal and call it a snowball. Gerhard is much luckier – he has his microscope…

Naked Eye Myths
By: Britney Ramsey (Riverdweller)
2012-01-09 22:32:46 EST (-0500)

Sorry Andrew, I have to disagree with you. There’s also nothing wrong with what Gerhard has mentioned. I don’t see any ‘pet idea’ here, just a continuation of information.
p.s., a quick google would probably lead you to those ‘40 species’ you heckle Gerhard about. Heck, there’s actually more like 50.

cheers

No, I am not going to send a hate mail …
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2012-01-09 21:03:18 EST (-0500)

instead I am going to agree with you in as much what the photo thing concerns.
That’s a HUGE problem.
From this species you will most probably not find good pics because the few corticiologists that take photos of them publish them all in very special papers and so on which I find is kinda silly but that’s the way scientists are.
But the thing with the naked eye is simply not possible. There are some people who even say some species are only discernible by molecular methods nowadays. Which I would like to disagree but am afraid in future will really be so. But then again it’s all a matter of concept. Good luck in getting ID’s your way.

Another stubborn guy here.
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-01-09 20:10:20 EST (-0500)

Since Gerhard promotes his pet idea, let me try mine again (although I fully expect tons of hate mail for this). With objects as large as mushrooms (or any other macroorganizms), there is often (not always, though) very subtle difference between the species, visible to the naked eye. The problem is, there are very few (if any) specialsits in the world capable of recognising it. The rest of us have to guess, or resort to microscopes, because we didn’t see these species thousands of times. The other part of the problem, we often can’t tell the difference even when it’s obvious. Why? Because nobody cares to illustrate/photograph those species. Stupid guides publish all the same fare. Even if you get a shot of less frequently encountered species, it’s usually either poor, or just taken from one angle, or both. You need at least dozens of photos of the similar species lined up next to each other to start perceive the difference. I’m still looking for the images of those 40 species of Phlebia Gerhard mentions…

It wouldn’t hurt
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2012-01-09 12:18:59 EST (-0500)

to put it on every observation that needs it…

What shall I tell?
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2012-01-09 12:17:05 EST (-0500)

You guys want answers about pics from fungi that no one can tell by the naked eye … so what else advice can I give?
:))

yes Gerhard we get it…. only can tell with
By: damon brunette (damonbrunette)
2012-01-09 12:01:09 EST (-0500)

a microscope….. how many posts do you need to put this on?

I even doubt this is Phlebia ….
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2012-01-09 11:54:05 EST (-0500)

but if it is a real Phlebia then I can tell you in Europe alone we have about 40 species of them and most can only be distinguished by our well-known optical apparatus called microscope :)

Phlebia tremellosa?
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2012-01-08 22:35:27 EST (-0500)

I’ve found one article on Merulius, but it’s almost a hundred years old:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/view/2989938
Since then, many Merulius ended in other genera (like Phlebia or Serpula). I wonder what’s still left in Merulius? M.Kuo calls Merulius tremellosus a synonym to Phlebia tremellosa, and I think some other Merulius are synonyms with Phlebia. I have plenty of Phlebia tremellosa photos, but all have at least somewhat developed caps, and the spore-bearing surface has prononced pattern. Phlebia radiata doesn’t look like this one either. What other species of Merulius (or Phlebia) are out there?

Created: 2012-01-07 19:02:58 EST (-0500)
Last modified: 2012-01-09 23:29:27 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 141 times, last viewed: 2016-02-01 16:06:46 EST (-0500)
Show Log