Observation 95090: Xylaria Hill ex Schrank
When: 2012-05-19
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

18% (2)
Recognized by sight: These do not show the antler like forks. But this may be due to the fruit bodies being immature.
Used references: Arora mentions other similar species.
78% (2)
Eye3 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
try these
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2012-06-28 03:17:33 AEST (+1000)

every one should be available on JSTOR, accessible with nothing more than a library membership.

Yes, it would be good to see more sources.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-06-28 02:30:14 AEST (+1000)

But for my own personal satisfaction, knowing this collection was not likely to be X. hypoxylon was sufficient. It is often the case that obtaining an ID at species level requires more time and energy than I am willing to put forth.

Despite this shortcoming, the information I gleaned from this post – in part, thanks to the presence of some knowledgeable people who are willing to share – was enough for me to confidently claim that your hypoxylon proposal (see obs 98391) may be incorrect… or at least an unwarranted extrapolation, given the info seen in the post.

http://mushroomobserver.org/98391?q=MYK5

Hmmm…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2012-06-28 01:57:06 AEST (+1000)

It would be good to see some more sources… Something more specific to Xylaria.

Aside from Danny’s and Damon’s comments,
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-06-27 22:03:18 AEST (+1000)

Arora mentions a few useful things within his comments under X. hypoxyln (Mushrooms Demystified).

What sources…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2012-06-27 11:37:47 AEST (+1000)

What sources have you used for this discussion?

..
By: damon brunette (damonbrunette)
2012-05-21 22:58:45 AEST (+1000)

Agree with Danny about the whole collection, just not one or two oddballs not looking right. Thickness for me seems off. Its sometimes not easy to say why something “is not” for a species as amateur naturalists.

Thanks Danny.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-05-21 22:44:46 AEST (+1000)

I just reread Arora’s comments under X. hypoxylon, and he does mention the rounded tops of the fruit bodies as a way to (possibly) rule out this species. So throwing the “doubtful” at my hypoxylon proposal looks like a good call.

Dave
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2012-05-21 16:55:51 AEST (+1000)

I know the characters you’ve listed to be common to a good many Xylaria. The sexual phase occurs first when the stromata are all dark (black/brown) and are later covered by a thick, white, powdery coat of conidia along the upper third to two thirds in the asexual phase. Don’t quote me on this, but I think that’s the gist of many members of the genus.

As far as it not being X. hypoxylon, the thickness and complete lack of branching lead me to think it’s some other Xylaria, but I’ve not read any descriptions to see just how variable the species can be.

Could someone tell me…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-05-21 01:27:42 AEST (+1000)

What is it about this obs that makes it probably not X. hypoxylon? Is there another possible genus?

These agree pretty well with some telling characters… fruit bodies lower parts black, upper parts coated in white powder. Spores (the ones in the white powder… the asexual ones) elongate and hyaline. I could barely see them under the scope. I suppose they should be mounted in Congo red.

I believe the substrate was beech wood.

Created: 2012-05-21 01:03:11 AEST (+1000)
Last modified: 2012-05-21 22:45:10 AEST (+1000)
Viewed: 84 times, last viewed: 2015-06-20 14:16:23 AEST (+1000)
Show Log