|I’d Call It That||3.0||13.96||3||(funkeytom,Noah,Gerhard)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
the first description has only “Pores ferruginous” to say on the subject of hymenium color. From this alone, you deduce that the entire description was based on dried material. I find that a stretch. When and where I have read descriptions made from herbarium exsiccata the author makes clear mention of that fact throughout, peppering his/her description with “[insert characteristic here] when dry” and “probably [insert characteristic here] when fresh.” This description goes on to list habitat as:
“On the ground, in rain forest, occasionally arising from buried wood.”
further suggesting the author’s first hand familiarity with fresh material.
More to the point, ferruginous pores and pores than stain reddish aren’t the same thing. Amauroderma & Ganoderma hymenia will darken at they age. Those spp. that are perennial will do so when they’ve stopped producing new layers. Staining is staining. In this case it’s an unmistakable, near-instantaneous, highly touch-sensitive, vibrant red staining. You’d think a feature with that degree of diagnostic power would get a pinch of spotlight in a written description.
The second description states:
Tubes 0.5-10 mm long, forming a surface either concolorous with the context (in specimens with dark-colored context) or darker than the context (in specimens with light-colored context). Pores (1.5-)24(-5) per mm, angular, with edges entire or slightly lacerate, thin, or with edges rounded and thick, forming a surface whitish or yellowish when fresh, honey or grayish and usually ferrugineous in old basidiocarps.
…which aside from being somewhat contradictory (tubes forming a dark surface, pores forming a surface whitish or yellowish when fresh), illustrates the changes in the color of A. rude’s hymenium as a process of aging, not staining. The same description also makes use of the word ‘fresh’ twice, once in the section quoted above, and once when talking about basidia:
“basidia seen only in fresh specimens…”
I just got (and subsequently misplaced) a copy of Neotropical Polypores Vol. 1 from Ryvarden, which IIRC deals with this genus. If/when I find it I’ll see if it has anything of consequence to offer on this issue.
that’s my book. I ID’d it with this field guide for I had no other during my stay over there.
Description from “A Field Guide to Australian Fungi”
Caps or brackets to 150mm across, somewhat polished in appearance, with radial and concentric ridging. Texture hard and woody. Stems central or lateral, dark brown, velvety. The white, pored undersurface rapidly turns dark reddish brown when bruised. Expanding fruit bodies frequently envelop grass and twigs. Found near decaying stumps and buried wood. Spores c. 9 × 7um, ovoid, finely dotted. Spore print brownish yellow."
descriptions describe dark pores, suggesting that they didn’t see fresh specimens either.
Have you found red-staining Amaurodermae in South America so far?
that despite common conceptions of A. rude possessing this quality of staining deep red upon bruising, that character is absent from no less than three descriptions of the species. to my mind, that says that A. rude is not a red-staining member of the genus, and therefore not this specimen nor any like it. I’m not a one-man authority, and even if I were, I would think this merits further investigation than the comment trail of this particular observation to draw any definitive conclusions.
my finds are deposited in the herbarium of Vienna under the name rudis.
Should I tell this isn’t correct? Are you just assuming this cannot be rudis because of some descriptions that lack the mentioning of some important character or is there some proof, are there keys, monographies, precise literature where one can determine it?
check the citations. both are non-original descriptions which either give an uncanny amount of fresh notes for being described from exsiccata, or are described from fresh material.
“Polyporaceae of New Zealand”
Bulletin of the New Zealand Department of Industrial Research. Vol. 164, 1965. pg. 142
“Taxonomy of Amauroderma (Basidiomycetes, Polyporaceae)”
Memoirs of the New York Botanical Garden Vol. 34, 1981. pg. 71
by Berkeley because he was describing it from dried specimens…
nowhere in either description at MycoBank:
is there mention of hymenial staining/bruising reactions, and yet A. rude is listed as easy to ID on account of an instant color change upon bruising at the following sites:
and in who knows how many other references.
Fungi of Tropical China (Wu et al) illustrates a blood-red staining Amauroderma on pg. 323 (plate 340) and calls it A. elmerianum, which MycoBank also neglects to mention as having any such staining reactions…
Created: 2012-05-25 12:34:09 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2014-06-16 10:00:38 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 201 times, last viewed: 2016-10-19 01:06:50 EDT (-0400)